[POLITICS] If Trump is Innocent, he should prove it

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 . . . 21 NEXT
 

The Nurenburg laws didn't see much backlash or harsh reaction... It seemed like it felt fine to treat the Jew as a second class person... Reception was pretty warm or indifferent regarding the prison camps for undesirables - homosexuals, jehovah's witnesses, political dissidents... They were viewed as a corrupting factor that had to be removed from the general population. They were forced to labor for the Reich in these camps. It was later during the occupation of Poland, that the Nazis had so indulged themselves in debasing the Polish Jewry - much to the appreciation of the Germans back home. It escalated into execution death squads run by or encouraged by the Germans, with either locals being motivated by the near Nazi occupation to 'remove' Jews (like the Lithuanian volunteers volunteering to murder Jews...) or local generals taking initiative to... liquidate the local Jewry. Such was the case in Kiev, where Jews were executed and buried in a mass grave in Babi Yar. I had family there. They didn't escape in time.

My grandmother warned me when I was young, not to trust the other girls, always look for a nice Jewish girl... When the order was set to flush the remaining Jews of Kiev, they all gathered outside, goaded by their neighbors and friends... Jewish Husbands kicked out of their homes by their Ukrainian wives...

Stop comparing to Hitler. You're making a fool of yourself.

Each terrible person is responsible to their despicable actions.

Before the Holocaust, Jews would say "We've lived past Pharaoh, we can endure this...", now they say it about Hitler... There have been very few individuals with the desire for such wanton murder... Do not cheapen the name, the significance behind it.

When Trump brings back Jim Crow, you can talk about resembling Hitler. So far every person is equal in the eyes of the law in the USA. That is the prelude to horrors to come... Japanese Americans were interned on US soil without any proper cause... Such is the line in the sand that they knew not to cross, that the government did cross with its own citizens... Was the US administration at the time a bunch of Nazis...

Idiotic hyperbolic claims cheapen what had happened. I hear it gladly recounted alongside gleeful accusation of the country of the Jews of the same thing... A pitiful attempt to redeem Europe of what it had done.

Sonmi:
I'm not handwaving the assaults, I'm pointing out that left wing violence is barely notable compared to how widespread right wing violence and terrorism is throughout the West. Any discussion of political violence centering on antifa is dealing in whataboutism, as far as I am concerned, it's talking about how the heating is too high while the house is on fire.

It's a whataboutism when it is used to excuse the actions of others. It's possible to find BOTH acts appalling. The right certainly does a lot of horrible shit, but that doesn't excuse the shit that extremists on the left pull either.

EDIT: As far as imposing political beliefs, one could argue that openly arguing and pushing for said beliefs, and successfully getting a candidate holding those beliefs elected, is pretty much actively enforcing those views.

That opens up the rabbit hole leading to democracy = tyranny. In this context, it's okay to assault people if you suspect they hold political leanings that do not align with yours? Under no circumstance am I defending the actions of the Republican party or the foolishness of those who vote for it, but I am still condemning people who think it is acceptable to assault and harass others for their (supposed) political affiliations.

Saelune:
A Nazi gets punched 'The left is terrible' but right-wingers shoot up multiple places and...what?

A guy in a van decked out as a shrine to Trump sends fucking bombs to left-wingers and...what?

If you really cared about political violence, you would condemn the right more than you do the left.

Nobody in this thread is arguing that shooting up establishments or bombing people is acceptable - but people are arguing that it's acceptable to assault people for having a political view they disagree with.

Would it make you happy if I keep rattling on about how murder is bad and how racially motivated violence is abhorrent? If I do that enough do I earn enough points to finally say that members of the left are also capable of behaving in an unacceptable manner?

Saelune:

Feeding the hungry, clothing the naked and sheltering the homeless for free, that's socialism, and it is not capitalism.

As is tradition, that's not socialism that does those things, it's society that does those things.

Asita:

To the latter paragraph, I believe we went over this on the first page of the thread. Obstruction of justice is a procedural crime that is not predicated on the existence of an underlying crime. It is entirely contained within the act of trying to illegally influence an investigation, regardless of the reason.

It's not predicated on the existence of an underlying crime, but that isn't this. You think Trump is guilty of obstructing justice because of comments he made about an investigation he cooperated with that couldn't indict him in the first place. It's not that he didn't obstruct justice because he wasn't guilty, it's that:

He didn't obstruct Mueller.
Mueller wasn't working to indict Trump.
You're now two connections away from Trump obstructing justice. Your case is only getting worse.

Point of fact, the report actually lays out a good ten counts of obstruction of justice, but rather explicitly refrains from making the charge because of that selfsame policy.

Perhaps the most apt phrase I've been hearing thrown about with regards to this is that the report is a roadmap. Essentially "we can't charge him now due to extant policy, but when we can charge him, here's what you charge him with".

I don't think you understand what the situation is at all. It's not miracle powers that exempt a sitting president from prosecution. It's a policy within the department of justice because the department of justice is in the executive branch, run by the president. He could have fired Mueller at any point for any reason and it wouldn't be obstruction of justice because it's not the job of the executive branch to have oversight of itself. There's not a policy of "we can't charge him yet", there's a policy of "we can't charge him." If you want the president charged, that's what the impeachment process is for. Nobody in their right mind is going to push for impeachment based on disliking being investigated for 2 years.

Agema:

No.

To use the simplistic notion of politics as a combination of social liberalism - illiberalism and economic preferences (capitalism - socialism), a substantial chunk of the "far left" are actually quite illiberal in various ways.

It is generally liberals who are in favour of easy legal access to drugs and sex - but bear in mind liberal in this sense runs all the way from the far left, through the centre, to a large chunk of the political right and libertarianism. "Physical satisfaction" however is not the moral imperative. The moral imperative is personal autonomy: the right to do with yourself what you wish without interference (assuming it does not harm others). Some people may choose physical pleasure first and foremost, however plenty of liberals will disapprove of it even if they accept the legal and moral right to do so. The reason for this is a distinction between a personal morality and the morality of imposing law: for instance things like lying and cheating on your spouse are usually held to be immoral, but not deemed appropriate for legal intervention.

I don't understand what you're thinking here. Why write out all that stuff about the moral imperative of liberalism immediately after acknowledging explicitly that the people I'm talking about aren't liberal? I know communists aren't liberal. If you think the people who want to abolish private property are for legalizing pot on the basis of the morality of personal autonomy, I'd suggest you're confused.

Saelune:

Abomination:

Sonmi:
I'd take having a soda spilled on my lap over getting stabbed to death, having my Church shot up, or having bombs sent to me, as far as political violence goes.

I mean, I don't agree with antifa's tactics, but to even discuss what they do when right-wing violence and terrorism is far more common, and worse, is hogwash

I don't think assaulting people for their political views or beliefs is justified unless they are actively trying to impose them.

In the examples above, by all accounts, the victims were not attempting to enforce any draconian or tyrannical policy - yet they were assaulted all the same. Just because other people are doing bad things is not an excuse to handwave assault crimes because the victims are of a different political allegiance.

A Nazi gets punched 'The left is terrible' but right-wingers shoot up multiple places and...what?

A guy in a van decked out as a shrine to Trump sends fucking bombs to left-wingers and...what?

If you really cared about political violence, you would condemn the right more than you do the left.

That's the thing exactly. The left is expected to apologize for every single time someone did something questionable and when someone hasn't done anything questionable in a while you just bring up fucking Stalin again and ask the left, as a whole, to apologize for everything he ever did. And the left, of course, has tripping over itself to do so whenever someone wants them to.

Take the right in comparison. Countless cases of genocide and murderous terrorism, looting and plundering every single country they run while promoting policies with no purpose other than to cause arbitrary selected minorities misery and commiting a genocide about once every few decades. Are they expected to apologize? Are they expected to disavow practically everything their side has been up to? Would they? Don't kid yourself. You asked rightists to apologize for the Holocaust you'd get one group who claims it had nothing to do with their ideology, another one that will tell you it should happen again and a third one denying it entirely.

Of course the one reason the right has gotten as strong as it did is the lefts inherent tendency towards pacifism and tolerance. I live in Germany, a country whose greatest responsiblity and utmost priority should be uncompromising antifascism, yet our rightists have a cute little nickname they give to everyone to the left of Reagan: "Gutmensch", which is, more or less, the German equivalent of the English "Do-gooder" or "Goody Two-Shoes" and demonstrates quite clearly how they view the antifascist left. As a bunch of spineless moralizers incapable of defending themselves.

tstorm823:

Asita:

To the latter paragraph, I believe we went over this on the first page of the thread. Obstruction of justice is a procedural crime that is not predicated on the existence of an underlying crime. It is entirely contained within the act of trying to illegally influence an investigation, regardless of the reason.

It's not predicated on the existence of an underlying crime, but that isn't this. You think Trump is guilty of obstructing justice because of comments he made about an investigation he cooperated with that couldn't indict him in the first place. It's not that he didn't obstruct justice because he wasn't guilty, it's that:

He didn't obstruct Mueller.
Mueller wasn't working to indict Trump.
You're now two connections away from Trump obstructing justice. Your case is only getting worse.

Ok, I'm seeing two points of disconnect here:

To the former, his success (or lack thereof) in obstructing Mueller is immaterial. The criteria for obstruction is met through making the attempt.

To the latter, whether or not Mueller was working to indict Trump is also immaterial. It wouldn't have even mattered if Trump was the subject of the investigation.

To explain this a bit further, the question of whether or not a given person is guilty of obstruction of justice is self contained in the question of whether or not they tried to illicitly influence the investigation. If someone willfully and knowingly tries to protect a suspect (eg, lying to investigators) or to hide from investigation of their own activities, they can be prosecuted for obstruction of justice. If they try to intimidate a witness, they can be prosecuted for obstruction of justice regardless of the witness's decision to testify. If they try to bribe someone to keep silent when queried by investigators, they can be prosecuted for obstruction of justice, regardless of whether or not their target even accepts the bribe, much less cooperates with investigators.

To be more direct, Obstruction of Justice is met through three criteria:

1) There was a pending federal judicial proceeding
2) The defendant knew of the proceeding
3) The defendant had corrupt intent to interfere with or attempted to interfere with the proceeding.

It really is that simple.

Point of fact, the report actually lays out a good ten counts of obstruction of justice, but rather explicitly refrains from making the charge because of that selfsame policy.

Perhaps the most apt phrase I've been hearing thrown about with regards to this is that the report is a roadmap. Essentially "we can't charge him now due to extant policy, but when we can charge him, here's what you charge him with".

I don't think you understand what the situation is at all. It's not miracle powers that exempt a sitting president from prosecution. It's a policy within the department of justice because the department of justice is in the executive branch, run by the president. He could have fired Mueller at any point for any reason and it wouldn't be obstruction of justice because it's not the job of the executive branch to have oversight of itself. There's not a policy of "we can't charge him yet", there's a policy of "we can't charge him." If you want the president charged, that's what the impeachment process is for. Nobody in their right mind is going to push for impeachment based on disliking being investigated for 2 years.

...That's about as wrong as saying that it wouldn't be obstruction of justice for a judge to dismiss a case against themselves because dismissing cases is part of their job. Or for a sheriff to fire anyone who insisted on investigating charges that said sheriff was taking bribes. Or to borrow from fiction, I can again draw a parallel to the film Philadelphia, albeit not for the crime of obstruction. The long and short of this is that while Beckett's (Hanks) firm, as his employer, had the right to terminate his employment in a broad sense, firing him because he had AIDS was still against the law. The reason behind the firing (or attempted firing) is the determinant factor, not whether or not they had the right to terminate employment under other circumstances.

On a more specific note, that's a bit of the pot calling the kettle black on your part, isn't it? The DoJ's standing policy not to indict a sitting president traces back to the a memo circulated in the Justice Department's Office of Legal Council in 1973, during the Watergate scandal, and reaffirmed in 2000. The stated rationale of the DoJ itself is that pressing charges against the president would be a constitutional violation of the separation of powers and undermine the capacity of the executive branch to execute its assigned functions. Point of fact, Mueller actually references this on page 213 of the report.

First, a traditional prosecution or declination decision entails a binary determination to initiate or decline a prosecution, but we determined not to make a traditional prosecutorial judgement. The Office of Legal Council (OLC) has issued an opinion finding that "the indictment or criminal prosecution of a sitting President would impermissibly undermine the capacity of the executive branch to perform its constitutionally assigned functions" in violation of "the constitutional separation of powers." Given the role of the Special Counsel as an attorney in the Department of Justice and the framework of the Special Counsel's regulations...this Office accepted OLC's legal conclusion for the purpose of exercising prosecutorial jurisdiction. And apart from OLC's constitutional view, we recognized that a federal criminal accusation against a sitting President would place burdens on the President's capacity to govern and potentially preempt constitutional processes for addressing Presidential misconduct.

Second, while the OLC opinion concludes that a sitting President may not be prosecuted, it recognizes that a criminal investigation during a President's term is permissible. The OLC opinion also recognizes that a President does not have immunity after he leaves office.

So, as I said, can't prosecute until he's out of office, whether through normal election process or impeachment.

And "based on disliking being investigated for 2 years"? To repeat what I said on page 2, "it's things like that that make me suspect that you are not as impartial as you believe yourself to be". Trying to convince the head of the FBI to bury the investigation into Michael Flynn and then firing said head for not playing ball doesn't even have anything to do with Trump being under investigation. And efforts to curtail an investigation, fire the prosecutor and then attempting to cover up that attempted firing, trying to influence testimony, trying to influence a jury...these go well beyond "disliking being investigated". You are trying to handwave some very serious attempts to interfere with several criminal proceedings.

Abomination:
Would it make you happy if I keep rattling on about how murder is bad and how racially motivated violence is abhorrent? If I do that enough do I earn enough points to finally say that members of the left are also capable of behaving in an unacceptable manner?

That would legitimately be better, yes. As PsychedelicDiamonds pointed out, there's a massive double standard in what is expected of people on the Left vs people on the Right. Hand-wringing about Antifa ain't going to lead us anywhere when the opposing side refuses to own up to its far more serious crimes.

tstorm823:
I don't understand what you're thinking here. Why write out all that stuff about the moral imperative of liberalism immediately after acknowledging explicitly that the people I'm talking about aren't liberal?

My apologies: I'm too used to "far left" being used to describe progressives and social democrats and I can't always keep track of people who use the term properly.

I know communists aren't liberal.

Which communists?

The old Soviet/Maoist style regimes certainly weren't liberal. According to Marxist theory, communism ends with the withering away of the state and so also centralised law and control - socialist libertarianism. The old Eastern bloc, by Marxist theory, was actually in a transitional phase between capitalism and communism. Whilst there still are Maoists / Leninists etc., the failure of those states has led a lot of modern communists to pursue communism by other means, and they tend to be liberal / libertarian.

Abomination:

Sonmi:
I'm not handwaving the assaults, I'm pointing out that left wing violence is barely notable compared to how widespread right wing violence and terrorism is throughout the West. Any discussion of political violence centering on antifa is dealing in whataboutism, as far as I am concerned, it's talking about how the heating is too high while the house is on fire.

It's a whataboutism when it is used to excuse the actions of others. It's possible to find BOTH acts appalling. The right certainly does a lot of horrible shit, but that doesn't excuse the shit that extremists on the left pull either.

EDIT: As far as imposing political beliefs, one could argue that openly arguing and pushing for said beliefs, and successfully getting a candidate holding those beliefs elected, is pretty much actively enforcing those views.

That opens up the rabbit hole leading to democracy = tyranny. In this context, it's okay to assault people if you suspect they hold political leanings that do not align with yours? Under no circumstance am I defending the actions of the Republican party or the foolishness of those who vote for it, but I am still condemning people who think it is acceptable to assault and harass others for their (supposed) political affiliations.

Saelune:
A Nazi gets punched 'The left is terrible' but right-wingers shoot up multiple places and...what?

A guy in a van decked out as a shrine to Trump sends fucking bombs to left-wingers and...what?

If you really cared about political violence, you would condemn the right more than you do the left.

Nobody in this thread is arguing that shooting up establishments or bombing people is acceptable - but people are arguing that it's acceptable to assault people for having a political view they disagree with.

Would it make you happy if I keep rattling on about how murder is bad and how racially motivated violence is abhorrent? If I do that enough do I earn enough points to finally say that members of the left are also capable of behaving in an unacceptable manner?

You are arguing that punching people in the face is a bigger deal than shooting up places or bombing people, becase you are acting like the left is worse than the right when that is just objectively not true. If you want to decry political violence, THEN DO THAT by actually making a big deal out of literal terrorists being terrorists and murdering people instead of making a big deal of Nazis being punched, cause guess what! America did way worse to Nazis in 1940's AND WE ALL USED TO AGREE THAT WAS GOOD!

Imagine going 46 miles in a 45 and getting pulled over by a cop, just as another person goes 90 past you both. You say 'but that guy is going 90!' and the cop responds 'Im not arguing that 90 is too fast, but you're the one Im going to ticket'.

Donald Trump is President, not Hillary Clinton. McConnel is stopping every piece of good legislation and political action, not Pelosi. Right-Wing Pro-Trump terrorists are murdering people left and right and barely any Nazis are actually being punched.

If all you care about is shitting on the left, then maybe you just don't actually care about opposing political violence.

tstorm823:

Saelune:

Feeding the hungry, clothing the naked and sheltering the homeless for free, that's socialism, and it is not capitalism.

As is tradition, that's not socialism that does those things, it's society that does those things.

Now don't get me wrong, I am well aware that many political labels have long been twisted into meaning different things. You yourself are trying to make people think communism is inherently hedonistic, which it is not.

But socialism gets its name from society, the idea being that society should look after the people that is part of it, that we should take care of eachother to better our society.

So yeah, it is socialism, because it is society. I will give you the benefit of the doubt here, if you think people helping eachother is good, then you need to stop being mistaken into thinking 'socialism' is this evil thing that Fox News and Trump wants you to think it is. Socialism is people helping people.

PsychedelicDiamond:

Saelune:

Abomination:
I don't think assaulting people for their political views or beliefs is justified unless they are actively trying to impose them.

In the examples above, by all accounts, the victims were not attempting to enforce any draconian or tyrannical policy - yet they were assaulted all the same. Just because other people are doing bad things is not an excuse to handwave assault crimes because the victims are of a different political allegiance.

A Nazi gets punched 'The left is terrible' but right-wingers shoot up multiple places and...what?

A guy in a van decked out as a shrine to Trump sends fucking bombs to left-wingers and...what?

If you really cared about political violence, you would condemn the right more than you do the left.

That's the thing exactly. The left is expected to apologize for every single time someone did something questionable and when someone hasn't done anything questionable in a while you just bring up fucking Stalin again and ask the left, as a whole, to apologize for everything he ever did. And the left, of course, has tripping over itself to do so whenever someone wants them to.

Take the right in comparison. Countless cases of genocide and murderous terrorism, looting and plundering every single country they run while promoting policies with no purpose other than to cause arbitrary selected minorities misery and commiting a genocide about once every few decades. Are they expected to apologize? Are they expected to disavow practically everything their side has been up to? Would they? Don't kid yourself. You asked rightists to apologize for the Holocaust you'd get one group who claims it had nothing to do with their ideology, another one that will tell you it should happen again and a third one denying it entirely.

Of course the one reason the right has gotten as strong as it did is the lefts inherent tendency towards pacifism and tolerance. I live in Germany, a country whose greatest responsiblity and utmost priority should be uncompromising antifascism, yet our rightists have a cute little nickname they give to everyone to the left of Reagan: "Gutmensch", which is, more or less, the German equivalent of the English "Do-gooder" or "Goody Two-Shoes" and demonstrates quite clearly how they view the antifascist left. As a bunch of spineless moralizers incapable of defending themselves.

I am just sick and tired of people telling me I am wrong for wanting fairness and equality.

Hawki:

Saelune:
A Nazi gets punched 'The left is terrible' but right-wingers shoot up multiple places and...what?

That would be all well and good if the term "Nazi" hadn't been thrown around so much that it's lost all meaning.

Neo-Nazis: We're Nazis!

Anti-Nazis: They are Nazis!

You: They aren't Nazis.

*shrug*

Thaluikhain:

Saelune:
'I know Hitler SAYS he wants to kill all Jews, but lets wait and see, he hasn't done it yet. Hell, I heard he was building camps for them, people are overreacting'.

To extend that a little, Hitler didn't actually kill 6 million Jews (and at least 5 million others, depends how you count it) personally. He just told people to do so, not even always in the form of official orders.

He also didn't start killing Jews right away. He was in power longer than Trump has doing much of the same thing Trump is doing before he actually got around to the killing. I have no doubt lots of people said things like 'He wont actually kill any Jews' or something or 'Wait and see before we jump to conclusions'. There were many years of Jews just being in an uncomfortable situation with a leader that hates them.

TheIronRuler:

When Trump brings back Jim Crow, you can talk about resembling Hitler. So far every person is equal in the eyes of the law in the USA. That is the prelude to horrors to come... Japanese Americans were interned on US soil without any proper cause... Such is the line in the sand that they knew not to cross, that the government did cross with its own citizens... Was the US administration at the time a bunch of Nazis...

Trump is closer to Hitler than that, only he's gunning for Muslims and Mexicans rather than Jews.
Remember his Muslim ban, and the fact that he wanted to require Muslims to carry paperwork/ a card that identified them as Muslims.
He has repeatedly attacked Mexican and South American immigrants, he has essentially built internment camps for immigrants, has taken hundreds if not thousands of children from their families. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if they discover mass graves on the US side of the border at some point.
And that's not even getting into the way he constantly attacks the free press, much like many dictators.

Sonmi:

I'd take having a soda spilled on my lap over getting stabbed to death, having my Church shot up, or having bombs sent to me, as far as political violence goes.

I mean, I don't agree with antifa's tactics, but to even discuss what they do when right-wing violence and terrorism is far more common, and worse, is hogwash

...and where do you put a group walking up and asking someone a question, then beating them if they don't give the "right" answer in that? Because, you know, the first link.

The sad part is that the other examples are literally "person minding their own business wearing a hat from a presidential campaign" and being subjected to minor violence. My point in including them being how easily and wildly mistargeted it is, that "punching Nazis" doesn't mean only doing violence to dangerous extremists but, you know, anyone you disagree with or believe you might disagree with, or who just doesn't know what you're asking.

Saelune:
Punching a person who advocates mass murder is not the same as committing mass murder. Go figure.

And having your group beat a Marine reservist because he didn't Tuesday what you Tuesday when asked if he's proud? Also, you realize you're doing the same mistargeting I was talking about right? The other incidents I linked didn't involve anyone advocating mass murder, let alone committing it - they were literally just going about their business while wearing a MAGA hat.

Saelune:

Thaluikhain:

Saelune:
'I know Hitler SAYS he wants to kill all Jews, but lets wait and see, he hasn't done it yet. Hell, I heard he was building camps for them, people are overreacting'.

To extend that a little, Hitler didn't actually kill 6 million Jews (and at least 5 million others, depends how you count it) personally. He just told people to do so, not even always in the form of official orders.

He also didn't start killing Jews right away. He was in power longer than Trump has doing much of the same thing Trump is doing before he actually got around to the killing. I have no doubt lots of people said things like 'He wont actually kill any Jews' or something or 'Wait and see before we jump to conclusions'. There were many years of Jews just being in an uncomfortable situation with a leader that hates them.

.
Took him less than 2 years in power to take away many of the civilian and human rights of Germany's Jewry. Restricted them heavily economically, barred them from centers of power and state-sanctioned positions... As more judges, professors and police-officers became members of the Nazi party, Jews were barred from those spheres. He separated Germany's Jewry from the rest of Germany's citizens, making inter-marriage illegal, and allowed the gestapo to arrest and intern mixed couples...

I ask you to stop this comparison it's offensive to the memory of the holocaust to compare the tv-host clown you've elected as president to the devil that murdered 6 million of my people.
.

twistedmic:

TheIronRuler:

When Trump brings back Jim Crow, you can talk about resembling Hitler. So far every person is equal in the eyes of the law in the USA. That is the prelude to horrors to come... Japanese Americans were interned on US soil without any proper cause... Such is the line in the sand that they knew not to cross, that the government did cross with its own citizens... Was the US administration at the time a bunch of Nazis...

Trump is closer to Hitler than that, only he's gunning for Muslims and Mexicans rather than Jews.
Remember his Muslim ban, and the fact that he wanted to require Muslims to carry paperwork/ a card that identified them as Muslims.
He has repeatedly attacked Mexican and South American immigrants, he has essentially built internment camps for immigrants, has taken hundreds if not thousands of children from their families. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if they discover mass graves on the US side of the border at some point.
And that's not even getting into the way he constantly attacks the free press, much like many dictators.

.
Mass graves on the US side of the border.

Say that out loud. Repeat it a few times. Imagine the people that could perpetrate such a thing. Contemplate what you've just said.

Regardless of the treatment of undocumented people - which was certainly not the case with Nazi Germany - A nation has a right and an obligation to its own citizens to protect its borders and stop the entry of foreigners. Borders exist for a reason.

Journalists have lost their jobs because of trump-mania. The quality of journalism is going to the gutter thanks to the constant need to bash this pinata until it pops.
.

PsychedelicDiamond:
.

.
The creed of socialism, marxism, communism... Expropriation of wealth by force - legalizing theft, murder and more for an ideal - that is the repugnant pillar of those collectivist policies I oppose, and why every follower of such an ideology should understand what they ought to apologize for.

Not for something some people did.

But for the very notion it's fair to steal and murder, to re-distribute as you see fit.

You're a decent person, you oppose violence... yet people will not relinquish their property for your dreams of equality. Do you want people to do it willingly, then? Be the first to volunteer. Grab the institutions of the state to forcefully fix the world to your philosophy... that's cruel and vain. Fall in love with the ideas you created, and believe them to be true above all, including the well-being and rights of your fellow humans.

Schadrach:

Sonmi:

I'd take having a soda spilled on my lap over getting stabbed to death, having my Church shot up, or having bombs sent to me, as far as political violence goes.

I mean, I don't agree with antifa's tactics, but to even discuss what they do when right-wing violence and terrorism is far more common, and worse, is hogwash

...and where do you put a group walking up and asking someone a question, then beating them if they don't give the "right" answer in that? Because, you know, the first link.

The sad part is that the other examples are literally "person minding their own business wearing a hat from a presidential campaign" and being subjected to minor violence. My point in including them being how easily and wildly mistargeted it is, that "punching Nazis" doesn't mean only doing violence to dangerous extremists but, you know, anyone you disagree with or believe you might disagree with, or who just doesn't know what you're asking.

Saelune:
Punching a person who advocates mass murder is not the same as committing mass murder. Go figure.

And having your group beat a Marine reservist because he didn't Tuesday what you Tuesday when asked if he's proud? Also, you realize you're doing the same mistargeting I was talking about right? The other incidents I linked didn't involve anyone advocating mass murder, let alone committing it - they were literally just going about their business while wearing a MAGA hat.

Hm. 'My group' huh? Your group shot places up and sent bombs to Democrats. But as I said to Abomination, you care more about shitting on the left than actually condemning political violence, because you don't actually care about condemning political violence. You just want to condemn left-wing violence that isn't even close to the levels of right-wing violence.

TheIronRuler:

Saelune:

Thaluikhain:

To extend that a little, Hitler didn't actually kill 6 million Jews (and at least 5 million others, depends how you count it) personally. He just told people to do so, not even always in the form of official orders.

He also didn't start killing Jews right away. He was in power longer than Trump has doing much of the same thing Trump is doing before he actually got around to the killing. I have no doubt lots of people said things like 'He wont actually kill any Jews' or something or 'Wait and see before we jump to conclusions'. There were many years of Jews just being in an uncomfortable situation with a leader that hates them.

.
Took him less than 2 years in power to take away many of the civilian and human rights of Germany's Jewry. Restricted them heavily economically, barred them from centers of power and state-sanctioned positions... As more judges, professors and police-officers became members of the Nazi party, Jews were barred from those spheres. He separated Germany's Jewry from the rest of Germany's citizens, making inter-marriage illegal, and allowed the gestapo to arrest and intern mixed couples...

I ask you to stop this comparison it's offensive to the memory of the holocaust to compare the tv-host clown you've elected as president to the devil that murdered 6 million of my people.
.

twistedmic:

TheIronRuler:

When Trump brings back Jim Crow, you can talk about resembling Hitler. So far every person is equal in the eyes of the law in the USA. That is the prelude to horrors to come... Japanese Americans were interned on US soil without any proper cause... Such is the line in the sand that they knew not to cross, that the government did cross with its own citizens... Was the US administration at the time a bunch of Nazis...

Trump is closer to Hitler than that, only he's gunning for Muslims and Mexicans rather than Jews.
Remember his Muslim ban, and the fact that he wanted to require Muslims to carry paperwork/ a card that identified them as Muslims.
He has repeatedly attacked Mexican and South American immigrants, he has essentially built internment camps for immigrants, has taken hundreds if not thousands of children from their families. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if they discover mass graves on the US side of the border at some point.
And that's not even getting into the way he constantly attacks the free press, much like many dictators.

.
Mass graves on the US side of the border.

Say that out loud. Repeat it a few times. Imagine the people that could perpetrate such a thing. Contemplate what you've just said.

Regardless of the treatment of undocumented people - which was certainly not the case with Nazi Germany - A nation has a right and an obligation to its own citizens to protect its borders and stop the entry of foreigners. Borders exist for a reason.

Journalists have lost their jobs because of trump-mania. The quality of journalism is going to the gutter thanks to the constant need to bash this pinata until it pops.
.

PsychedelicDiamond:
.

.
The creed of socialism, marxism, communism... Expropriation of wealth by force - legalizing theft, murder and more for an ideal - that is the repugnant pillar of those collectivist policies I oppose, and why every follower of such an ideology should understand what they ought to apologize for.

Not for something some people did.

But for the very notion it's fair to steal and murder, to re-distribute as you see fit.

You're a decent person, you oppose violence... yet people will not relinquish their property for your dreams of equality. Do you want people to do it willingly, then? Be the first to volunteer. Grab the institutions of the state to forcefully fix the world to your philosophy... that's cruel and vain. Fall in love with the ideas you created, and believe them to be true above all, including the well-being and rights of your fellow humans.

Whats insulting to the memory of the Holocaust is repeating literally the same fucking mistakes that lead to the first one! Most memorials to the Holocaust are explicitly about preventing the same thing happening again!

TheIronRuler:

Took him less than 2 years in power to take away many of the civilian and human rights of Germany's Jewry. Restricted them heavily economically, barred them from centers of power and state-sanctioned positions... As more judges, professors and police-officers became members of the Nazi party, Jews were barred from those spheres. He separated Germany's Jewry from the rest of Germany's citizens, making inter-marriage illegal, and allowed the gestapo to arrest and intern mixed couples...

I ask you to stop this comparison it's offensive to the memory of the holocaust to compare the tv-host clown you've elected as president to the devil that murdered 6 million of my people.

Did Germany have the checks and balances that the US has? Was the German constitution/government designed to try and prevent authoritarians from taking power? Did Hitler have the amount of opposition that Trump and his Republicans have? Was there as much media coverage and information showing what Hitler was trying to do?

Hitler was a monster that tried to eradicate more than just the Jews. He also tried to exterminate Slavs, gays, mentally handicapped, Poles, political rivals, trade unionists and more. Nearly half of the eleven million victims of the holocaust were non-Jews.

Mass graves on the US side of the border.

Say that out loud. Repeat it a few times. Imagine the people that could perpetrate such a thing. Contemplate what you've just said.

Regardless of the treatment of undocumented people - which was certainly not the case with Nazi Germany - A nation has a right and an obligation to its own citizens to protect its borders and stop the entry of foreigners. Borders exist for a reason.

Despicable, racists people that see other races as sub-human will do shit like that. Trump and his ilk have shown repeatedly that they see non-whites as less than human. Trump himself has called immigrants 'animals'. White Nationalists and White Supremacist make up a solid portion of his base. Trump's 'America First' slogan was heavily used by the Ku Klux Klan- a White Supremacist terrorist organization that viciously murdered most likely thousands of black people.
US border protection has already fired tear gas at children.
A nation does have the right to protect its borders, but forcibly detaining legal asylum seekers, tearing apart families and forcing/tricking minors into signing away their rights, or having non-English speaking children attend deportation hearings without attorneys.
All of these things can be stepping stones to greater atrocities. You do not prevent horrors by ignoring warning signs and red flags.

Sonmi:

Abomination:
Would it make you happy if I keep rattling on about how murder is bad and how racially motivated violence is abhorrent? If I do that enough do I earn enough points to finally say that members of the left are also capable of behaving in an unacceptable manner?

That would legitimately be better, yes. As PsychedelicDiamonds pointed out, there's a massive double standard in what is expected of people on the Left vs people on the Right. Hand-wringing about Antifa ain't going to lead us anywhere when the opposing side refuses to own up to its far more serious crimes.

I think we've come full circle with whataboutisims here.

"Antifa does not behave in an acceptable manner."
"But what about Trump?"

The fact that Trump does bad things does not excuse Antifa's actions.

Nobody here is excusing the Right, they are condemning the actions of extreme left leaning individuals.

I didn't do any of these things the Right has gotten up to, I have not advocated for any of it - but I still have to mention all of it before I criticise people for attacking others for having opposing political beliefs?

Saelune:
You are arguing that punching people in the face is a bigger deal than shooting up places or bombing people, becase you are acting like the left is worse than the right when that is just objectively not true. If you want to decry political violence, THEN DO THAT by actually making a big deal out of literal terrorists being terrorists and murdering people instead of making a big deal of Nazis being punched, cause guess what! America did way worse to Nazis in 1940's AND WE ALL USED TO AGREE THAT WAS GOOD!

I am not saying it's a bigger deal. I have never said it's a bigger deal. It is possible to hold views about many events at the same time, to disagree with the stance of the Right while also taking issue with the actions of the Left.

Imagine going 46 miles in a 45 and getting pulled over by a cop, just as another person goes 90 past you both. You say 'but that guy is going 90!' and the cop responds 'Im not arguing that 90 is too fast, but you're the one Im going to ticket'.

That is not the situation, there is not another person going 90 going past within the vicinity. There is a person going 90 five countries over and I am in no position to prevent that. That is the context of this conversation.

Donald Trump is President, not Hillary Clinton. McConnel is stopping every piece of good legislation and political action, not Pelosi. Right-Wing Pro-Trump terrorists are murdering people left and right and barely any Nazis are actually being punched.

If all you care about is shitting on the left, then maybe you just don't actually care about opposing political violence.

And there are children dying in Africa every day due to bad water and blah blah blah clearly you're so hung up on Nazis not getting punched that you're perfectly okay with genocide of black people. Come on, stop being so obtuse.

Saelune:
Neo-Nazis: We're Nazis!

Anti-Nazis: They are Nazis!

You: They aren't Nazis.

*shrug*

I thought this was about Trump, not actual Neo-Nazis.

Abomination:
Nobody in this thread is arguing that shooting up establishments or bombing people is acceptable - but people are arguing that it's acceptable to assault people for having a political view they disagree with.

Would it make you happy if I keep rattling on about how murder is bad and how racially motivated violence is abhorrent?

So what if the so-called 'political view' they are disagreeing with is murder and racially motivated violence? Just shrug and say 'oh well, democracy.'?

Kwak:

Abomination:
Nobody in this thread is arguing that shooting up establishments or bombing people is acceptable - but people are arguing that it's acceptable to assault people for having a political view they disagree with.

Would it make you happy if I keep rattling on about how murder is bad and how racially motivated violence is abhorrent?

So what if the so-called 'political view' they are disagreeing with is murder and racially motivated violence? Just shrug and say 'oh well, democracy.'?

In that hypothetical situation, which presently does not exist in the United States, one would consider that the Constitution, or Bill of Rights, or whichever fundamental legislative ruling already provides protection against such views.

There are also already laws against such calls to action. It is not up to the population to be one step to lynching someone for their (supposed, mind you) political views.

I mean, where's the cut-off? This person, in the attacker's opinion, is preaching racially motivated violence, so the attacker can... what? Beat them unconscious? Cause permanent physical injury? Rob them of their belongings? Kill this person in "fear" of their political views? Run them over with a tank? Kidnap them and force them to work in a gulag?

tstorm823:
We see that over the last couple centuries, mankind has for the first time experienced a world that isn't dominated by whoever is most violent,

May I introduce to you The United States of America, world's dominant superpower and strongest military force, with troops deployed in over 150 countries, and owner of over 7000 nuclear warheads with approximately 1800 actively deployed.
Violence, and the immanent threat of it, still very much rules the world.

twistedmic:

TheIronRuler:

Took him less than 2 years in power to take away many of the civilian and human rights of Germany's Jewry. Restricted them heavily economically, barred them from centers of power and state-sanctioned positions... As more judges, professors and police-officers became members of the Nazi party, Jews were barred from those spheres. He separated Germany's Jewry from the rest of Germany's citizens, making inter-marriage illegal, and allowed the gestapo to arrest and intern mixed couples...

I ask you to stop this comparison it's offensive to the memory of the holocaust to compare the tv-host clown you've elected as president to the devil that murdered 6 million of my people.

Did Germany have the checks and balances that the US has? Was the German constitution/government designed to try and prevent authoritarians from taking power? Did Hitler have the amount of opposition that Trump and his Republicans have? Was there as much media coverage and information showing what Hitler was trying to do?

Hitler was a monster that tried to eradicate more than just the Jews. He also tried to exterminate Slavs, gays, mentally handicapped, Poles, political rivals, trade unionists and more. Nearly half of the eleven million victims of the holocaust were non-Jews.

Mass graves on the US side of the border.

Say that out loud. Repeat it a few times. Imagine the people that could perpetrate such a thing. Contemplate what you've just said.

Regardless of the treatment of undocumented people - which was certainly not the case with Nazi Germany - A nation has a right and an obligation to its own citizens to protect its borders and stop the entry of foreigners. Borders exist for a reason.

Despicable, racists people that see other races as sub-human will do shit like that. Trump and his ilk have shown repeatedly that they see non-whites as less than human. Trump himself has called immigrants 'animals'. White Nationalists and White Supremacist make up a solid portion of his base. Trump's 'America First' slogan was heavily used by the Ku Klux Klan- a White Supremacist terrorist organization that viciously murdered most likely thousands of black people.
US border protection has already fired tear gas at children.
A nation does have the right to protect its borders, but forcibly detaining legal asylum seekers, tearing apart families and forcing/tricking minors into signing away their rights, or having non-English speaking children attend deportation hearings without attorneys.
All of these things can be stepping stones to greater atrocities. You do not prevent horrors by ignoring warning signs and red flags.

.
There are mass graves in Mexico. Mexicans murdering other Mexicans. They are not 'Despicable, racists people that see other races as sub-human'... What you see there, I can't see from here. I don't see what your eyes see. Are you American? I don't live in the US, I haven't seen these kinds of people myself, I can't tell... I don't think they come close to what you're describing to me.

I've had to use tear gas grenades on children before. It's a legitimate and non-violent way to disperse non-combatants... The question here should be why are there children there to begin with... Illegal border crossing is dangerous. It used to be that young and able-bodied people crossed the border, made some money and sent it back... but now that you can live off welfare in some US states and not even work, the whole family is coming over. US sends aid away, yet it comes to socialist nations to be redistributed by the state and siphoned off by the rulers... never to reach its intended audience.
.

Saelune:
Whats insulting to the memory of the Holocaust is repeating literally the same fucking mistakes that lead to the first one! Most memorials to the Holocaust are explicitly about preventing the same thing happening again!

.
It's not literally the same mistakes and you're too emotionally juvenile and ignorant of history to realize it. I can't help you understand that.

TheIronRuler:
The Nurenburg laws didn't see much backlash or harsh reaction... It seemed like it felt fine to treat the Jew as a second class person... Reception was pretty warm or indifferent regarding the prison camps for undesirables - homosexuals, jehovah's witnesses, political dissidents... They were viewed as a corrupting factor that had to be removed from the general population. They were forced to labor for the Reich in these camps. It was later during the occupation of Poland, that the Nazis had so indulged themselves in debasing the Polish Jewry - much to the appreciation of the Germans back home. It escalated into execution death squads run by or encouraged by the Germans, with either locals being motivated by the near Nazi occupation to 'remove' Jews (like the Lithuanian volunteers volunteering to murder Jews...) or local generals taking initiative to... liquidate the local Jewry. Such was the case in Kiev, where Jews were executed and buried in a mass grave in Babi Yar. I had family there. They didn't escape in time.

My grandmother warned me when I was young, not to trust the other girls, always look for a nice Jewish girl... When the order was set to flush the remaining Jews of Kiev, they all gathered outside, goaded by their neighbors and friends... Jewish Husbands kicked out of their homes by their Ukrainian wives...

Stop comparing to Hitler. You're making a fool of yourself.

Each terrible person is responsible to their despicable actions.

Before the Holocaust, Jews would say "We've lived past Pharaoh, we can endure this...", now they say it about Hitler... There have been very few individuals with the desire for such wanton murder... Do not cheapen the name, the significance behind it.

When Trump brings back Jim Crow, you can talk about resembling Hitler. So far every person is equal in the eyes of the law in the USA. That is the prelude to horrors to come... Japanese Americans were interned on US soil without any proper cause... Such is the line in the sand that they knew not to cross, that the government did cross with its own citizens... Was the US administration at the time a bunch of Nazis...

Idiotic hyperbolic claims cheapen what had happened. I hear it gladly recounted alongside gleeful accusation of the country of the Jews of the same thing... A pitiful attempt to redeem Europe of what it had done.

The reason there was not much backlash against such things was they had already normalized hatred at that point. After years of campaigning against a people, the masses were already social conditioned to blame them for all their problems as a "common enemy". That is exactly what we are experiencing now in the US. Trump is blaming Muslims and immigrants for all the people's woes, in the same way the people of Germany were socially conditioned to blame the Jewish people. We are already having immigrant husbands, mothers, fathers, children, brothers and sisters stripped from their families and currently the government does not even know where they even went. The US is already stripping citizens of their citizenship and imprisoning them. This should never be allowed to happen in the US.

What you describe above is what happens when you let this behavior continue unchecked. We have already seen where this leads, why should we allow it to get that far? Right now we have literally neo Nazi groups in the US that think what Hitler did was a great thing and they admire him for those actions and want to see those actions repeated. They were the ones marching through the streets in Charlottesville where one of them ran over a girl with his car. Those same people were the people Trump said were "very fine people" because they are also the same people who helped him get elected and he knows that. He has been retweeting them to encourage them and if it were not for their support he would have never had won his primary in the first place. He is targeting others to try and distract from the root of the people's real problems, that is the wealthy draining all their communities of resources, including himself.

The idea that we can allow what led up to the holocaust to happen, but not actually start killing people before it is "as bad as Hitler" is turning a blind eye to all of the horrific things he did prior to that point that allowed him to go to that extreme. Allowing such irrational hatred to go unchecked increases the rate at which the rate of escalates into "doing more than the last guy". Due to Obama being harsher on immigrants than his predecessors, It made it very difficult for Trump to be harsher than Obama leaving him to strip people from their families in the US, remove citizenship from citizens, confiscate their businesses and homes, and put people in camps. Trump's camps are too full, What is the next step after that?

twistedmic:

TheIronRuler:

When Trump brings back Jim Crow, you can talk about resembling Hitler. So far every person is equal in the eyes of the law in the USA. That is the prelude to horrors to come... Japanese Americans were interned on US soil without any proper cause... Such is the line in the sand that they knew not to cross, that the government did cross with its own citizens... Was the US administration at the time a bunch of Nazis...

Trump is closer to Hitler than that, only he's gunning for Muslims and Mexicans rather than Jews.
Remember his Muslim ban, and the fact that he wanted to require Muslims to carry paperwork/ a card that identified them as Muslims.
He has repeatedly attacked Mexican and South American immigrants, he has essentially built internment camps for immigrants, has taken hundreds if not thousands of children from their families. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if they discover mass graves on the US side of the border at some point.
And that's not even getting into the way he constantly attacks the free press, much like many dictators.

We have already found numerous mass graves on Mexico's side of the border perpetrated by a US special forces trained cartel.
Remember ever single time you hear of the " Zetas" know that the US is who trained them to be that effective. Their former leader raised right here in Dallas. Also keep in mind trump's border wall does nothing to keep them out as they are based heavily in the US, with US citizen gangs as well as members of the US military.A wall will not even slow them down, they are special forces. Hell they infiltrate the border patrol, not worried about them stopping them.

https://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/features/2010/10/20101019212440609775.html
http://www.borderlandbeat.com/2011/04/body-count-from-mexican-mass-graves.html
https://www.businessinsider.com/mexico-captures-us-citizen-zetas-cartel-leader-2018-2
https://www.businessinsider.com/cartels-are-recruiting-us-soldiers-as-hitmen-2013-8
https://www.insightcrime.org/news/analysis/mexico-cartels-us-border-patrol-corruption/
https://www.insightcrime.org/news/brief/us-citizens-found-in-mexico-mass-grave/

TheIronRuler:

twistedmic:

TheIronRuler:

Took him less than 2 years in power to take away many of the civilian and human rights of Germany's Jewry. Restricted them heavily economically, barred them from centers of power and state-sanctioned positions... As more judges, professors and police-officers became members of the Nazi party, Jews were barred from those spheres. He separated Germany's Jewry from the rest of Germany's citizens, making inter-marriage illegal, and allowed the gestapo to arrest and intern mixed couples...

I ask you to stop this comparison it's offensive to the memory of the holocaust to compare the tv-host clown you've elected as president to the devil that murdered 6 million of my people.

Did Germany have the checks and balances that the US has? Was the German constitution/government designed to try and prevent authoritarians from taking power? Did Hitler have the amount of opposition that Trump and his Republicans have? Was there as much media coverage and information showing what Hitler was trying to do?

Hitler was a monster that tried to eradicate more than just the Jews. He also tried to exterminate Slavs, gays, mentally handicapped, Poles, political rivals, trade unionists and more. Nearly half of the eleven million victims of the holocaust were non-Jews.

Mass graves on the US side of the border.

Say that out loud. Repeat it a few times. Imagine the people that could perpetrate such a thing. Contemplate what you've just said.

Regardless of the treatment of undocumented people - which was certainly not the case with Nazi Germany - A nation has a right and an obligation to its own citizens to protect its borders and stop the entry of foreigners. Borders exist for a reason.

Despicable, racists people that see other races as sub-human will do shit like that. Trump and his ilk have shown repeatedly that they see non-whites as less than human. Trump himself has called immigrants 'animals'. White Nationalists and White Supremacist make up a solid portion of his base. Trump's 'America First' slogan was heavily used by the Ku Klux Klan- a White Supremacist terrorist organization that viciously murdered most likely thousands of black people.
US border protection has already fired tear gas at children.
A nation does have the right to protect its borders, but forcibly detaining legal asylum seekers, tearing apart families and forcing/tricking minors into signing away their rights, or having non-English speaking children attend deportation hearings without attorneys.
All of these things can be stepping stones to greater atrocities. You do not prevent horrors by ignoring warning signs and red flags.

.
There are mass graves in Mexico. Mexicans murdering other Mexicans. They are not 'Despicable, racists people that see other races as sub-human'... What you see there, I can't see from here. I don't see what your eyes see. Are you American? I don't live in the US, I haven't seen these kinds of people myself, I can't tell... I don't think they come close to what you're describing to me.

I've had to use tear gas grenades on children before. It's a legitimate and non-violent way to disperse non-combatants... The question here should be why are there children there to begin with... Illegal border crossing is dangerous. It used to be that young and able-bodied people crossed the border, made some money and sent it back... but now that you can live off welfare in some US states and not even work, the whole family is coming over. US sends aid away, yet it comes to socialist nations to be redistributed by the state and siphoned off by the rulers... never to reach its intended audience.
.

Saelune:
Whats insulting to the memory of the Holocaust is repeating literally the same fucking mistakes that lead to the first one! Most memorials to the Holocaust are explicitly about preventing the same thing happening again!

.
It's not literally the same mistakes and you're too emotionally juvenile and ignorant of history to realize it. I can't help you understand that.

First of all, like you said, you are not in the US, so you are not exactly "aware" of everything going on here.
1) If you read the links provided above, you would understand the Cartel that is responsible for the " mass graves" was trained by US special forces, their former leader a US citizen that grew up here in Dallas, Texas, and employs US Military, US border patrol and US citizens. They not only operate in Mexico, but also in the US and there have also been US citizens found in these mass graves.

2)Yes, in the US we have an alarming rise in White nationalism, Neo Nazism, and other racist groups that want to do whatever it takes to remove all non whites from the US. These same groups do not consider Jewish people or " Mediterranean whites" to be " white" as well. These groups are active in my area and leave fliers on my car and door, hold rallies in town and constantly make lives for others hell here.

3)The children at the border are refugees fleeing cartel violence, the worst of which has been perpetrated by the cartel trained by US special forces. The cartels do not just target adults, they target entire families, they target children to make the people they are targeting suffer by watching their children be tortured. In many cases, if these children were not at the US border they would have been dead already.

4)The people coming in now are not looking to work and send money home, they are seeking asylum so they do not die. That is why you are seeing such an influx of women and children. The people are seeking the first available US soil to stand on and seeking to turn themselves in immediately to apply for asylum. The US used tear gas on the children to keep them away from US soil to do so, which should be considered illegal.

Sandweg added: "This is a different type of situation than we've ever dealt with at the border before. These people are not trying to sneak into the United States and evade capture. They want to surrender right away because they know that [the Department of Homeland Security] is currently overwhelmed. So, no, the wall is not going to do anything about it."

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/former-ice-director-closing-southern-border_n_5ca2413be4b014390a168e97

5) The US has not "just been sending aid" they have determined to use the aid to empower those with contracts to US business that have lobbied the US government to do so. They use the aid to keep the person willing to sell out their own people in power. That is the reality of how this has worked for a very long time now. To change who is in power and what is done to help the people, you have to change the US actions that have caused this in the first place. The US is not correcting their mistakes, they just keep making them worse. The US often causes the destabilization that increases the number of refugees fleeing to the US.

http://oxfordre.com/politics/view/10.1093/acrefore/9780190228637.001.0001/acrefore-9780190228637-e-332

EDIT: Also you should understand that undocumented immigrants cannot legally receive welfare in the US. You keep saying that but it is not true.

FACTS:

Medical Insurance. Immigrants in the country illegally are not eligible for government health care programs, including Medicare and non-emergency Medicaid. And they?re not eligible to receive federal subsidies or to outright buy their own insurance through the Affordable Care Act?s insurance exchanges. Some unauthorized immigrants may receive care through private employers, but many remain uninsured.

https://www.factcheck.org/2018/11/meme-misleads-on-benefits-of-illegal-immigration/

Undocumented immigrants do not qualify for welfare, food stamps, Medicaid, and most other public benefits. Most of these programs require proof of legal immigration status and under the 1996 welfare law, even legal immigrants cannot receive these benefits until they have been in the United States for more than five years.

https://money.cnn.com/2014/11/20/news/economy/immigration-myths/

You have to have documentation to receive benefits. When my father had multiple strokes and became paralyzed, while waiting for him to be approved for disability, I had to sign my parents up to receive food and bill assistance due to both of them becoming disabled. While I was able to keep them from losing their home while my father was hospitalized, it was extremely draining on me financially to pay all the bills and taxes for two households, including all of their farmland. They required 3 forms of ID to prove who they were and citizenship ( Social security card, Driver's license or State ID, and Birth certificate), current household bills in their name to prove residency, proof of disability and proof of income. Even with all of that, and them receiving 0 income in their household at the time, they still received very little in government benefits. A couple of hundred dollars a month is still not enough to make ends meet or survive on, it just meant I had to pay a little less to support two households. Ultimately, I wound up selling my home over it and moving somewhere less expensive due to how financially draining that actually was for me.

For someone undocumented to receive any government benefits, they would have to already pay a ton of money to obtain illegal or stolen documents that could lead to their arrest if they used them. It is extremely difficult for anyone to do so, and unlikely many would be willing to take that risk. They have police on site at the places where you go to apply for these things and they will arrest people falsely presenting themselves.

EDIT(again): In addition, when you apply for benefits, at the time they only give you emergency assistance to tide you over during the approval process, you are not actually approved until your documentation is sent off to the state capital for verification to ensure it is accurate.

You should also understand that welfare in the US is actually very small, not enough to survive on, even if you are homeless and have 0 income and 0 bills, and it is very easy for a person to become homeless in the US compared to most western nations. The US does not have the same sort of benefits most western nations have, and varies by state. Texas does not provide much at all, and the little that is provided is not available to undocumented immigrants and that is where most of the immigrants are coming in.

I also replied to your PM

Abomination:
In that hypothetical situation, which presently does not exist in the United States, one would consider that the Constitution, or Bill of Rights, or whichever fundamental legislative ruling already provides protection against such views.

In theory, yes, in practice, to an extent. Legislation is only as good as it's applied, and it's not being applied terribly well.

Murder and racially motivated violence is happening right now. It's only a hypothetical situation for people not on the pointy end.

Abomination:
It is not up to the population to be one step to lynching someone for their (supposed, mind you) political views.

You mean it shouldn't be. Not quite the same thing. People taking the law into their own hands is a terrible solution, but if the law is failing people there's not many options left.

Fascism: I sometimes fear...
I sometimes fear that
people think that fascism arrives in fancy dress
worn by grotesques and monsters
as played out in endless re-runs of the Nazis.

Fascism arrives as your friend.
It will restore your honour,
make you feel proud,
protect your house,
give you a job,
clean up the neighbourhood,
remind you of how great you once were,
clear out the venal and the corrupt,
remove anything you feel is unlike you...

It doesn't walk in saying,
"Our programme means militias, mass imprisonments, transportations, war and persecution."

- Michael Rosen

Thaluikhain:

Abomination:
In that hypothetical situation, which presently does not exist in the United States, one would consider that the Constitution, or Bill of Rights, or whichever fundamental legislative ruling already provides protection against such views.

In theory, yes, in practice, to an extent. Legislation is only as good as it's applied, and it's not being applied terribly well.

Murder and racially motivated violence is happening right now. It's only a hypothetical situation for people not on the pointy end.

Abomination:
It is not up to the population to be one step to lynching someone for their (supposed, mind you) political views.

You mean it shouldn't be. Not quite the same thing. People taking the law into their own hands is a terrible solution, but if the law is failing people there's not many options left.

I could understand that if they were at least attacking the legislators, but they're targeting the voters.

The solution to the problem does lie in the democratic process, and it requires a top-down restructure. The US was SO close to an option there, but stumbled at the starting block. Here's hoping next election a candidate that is willing to break the status quo is nominated.

Edit: Of course, they would then have to survive the likely assassination attempt that the US is wont to do when a president looks at reforming the government.

Hawki:

Saelune:
Neo-Nazis: We're Nazis!

Anti-Nazis: They are Nazis!

You: They aren't Nazis.

*shrug*

I thought this was about Trump, not actual Neo-Nazis.

Neo-Nazis and White Supremacists support Trump because he shares their views.

This is about Trump supporting Nazi views.

Abomination:

Sonmi:

Abomination:
Would it make you happy if I keep rattling on about how murder is bad and how racially motivated violence is abhorrent? If I do that enough do I earn enough points to finally say that members of the left are also capable of behaving in an unacceptable manner?

That would legitimately be better, yes. As PsychedelicDiamonds pointed out, there's a massive double standard in what is expected of people on the Left vs people on the Right. Hand-wringing about Antifa ain't going to lead us anywhere when the opposing side refuses to own up to its far more serious crimes.

I think we've come full circle with whataboutisims here.

"Antifa does not behave in an acceptable manner."
"But what about Trump?"

The fact that Trump does bad things does not excuse Antifa's actions.

Nobody here is excusing the Right, they are condemning the actions of extreme left leaning individuals.

I didn't do any of these things the Right has gotten up to, I have not advocated for any of it - but I still have to mention all of it before I criticise people for attacking others for having opposing political beliefs?

Saelune:
You are arguing that punching people in the face is a bigger deal than shooting up places or bombing people, becase you are acting like the left is worse than the right when that is just objectively not true. If you want to decry political violence, THEN DO THAT by actually making a big deal out of literal terrorists being terrorists and murdering people instead of making a big deal of Nazis being punched, cause guess what! America did way worse to Nazis in 1940's AND WE ALL USED TO AGREE THAT WAS GOOD!

I am not saying it's a bigger deal. I have never said it's a bigger deal. It is possible to hold views about many events at the same time, to disagree with the stance of the Right while also taking issue with the actions of the Left.

Imagine going 46 miles in a 45 and getting pulled over by a cop, just as another person goes 90 past you both. You say 'but that guy is going 90!' and the cop responds 'Im not arguing that 90 is too fast, but you're the one Im going to ticket'.

That is not the situation, there is not another person going 90 going past within the vicinity. There is a person going 90 five countries over and I am in no position to prevent that. That is the context of this conversation.

Donald Trump is President, not Hillary Clinton. McConnel is stopping every piece of good legislation and political action, not Pelosi. Right-Wing Pro-Trump terrorists are murdering people left and right and barely any Nazis are actually being punched.

If all you care about is shitting on the left, then maybe you just don't actually care about opposing political violence.

And there are children dying in Africa every day due to bad water and blah blah blah clearly you're so hung up on Nazis not getting punched that you're perfectly okay with genocide of black people. Come on, stop being so obtuse.

Its what you are not saying that is a problem, cause you are always criticizing the left and never the right, when it is the right who is in power and it is the right doing all the wrong things. Its like condemning a kid for beating up their bully while never mentioning that the bully was beating that kid up first.

I live in the US where Trump is the President and his Republican goons are in power virtualy everywhere else, handily dismembering Checks and Balances. You're the one ignoring the problem by pretending the people not in power are the problem. You are the one being obtuse. Because as I said, you care more about bashing the left than actually supporting the beliefs you claim to have.

Majestic Manatee:
Fascism: I sometimes fear...
I sometimes fear that
people think that fascism arrives in fancy dress
worn by grotesques and monsters
as played out in endless re-runs of the Nazis.

Fascism arrives as your friend.
It will restore your honour,
make you feel proud,
protect your house,
give you a job,
clean up the neighbourhood,
remind you of how great you once were,
clear out the venal and the corrupt,
remove anything you feel is unlike you...

It doesn't walk in saying,
"Our programme means militias, mass imprisonments, transportations, war and persecution."

- Michael Rosen

First they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out-
Because I was not a socialist.
Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out-
Because I was not a trade unionist.
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out-
Because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for me-and there was no one left to speak for me.

- Martin Niem?ller

Abomination:
The solution to the problem does lie in the democratic process, and it requires a top-down restructure. The US was SO close to an option there, but stumbled at the starting block. Here's hoping next election a candidate that is willing to break the status quo is nominated.

Even at the best of times, that's no small problem. "The democratic process" has been slow to fix problems that have existed for generations. Immediately after the damage Trump has done is not the best of times. It'll take years, perhaps decades just to undo the damage Trump has done and is still doing, not least appointing SCotUSes.

Abomination:
Edit: Of course, they would then have to survive the likely assassination attempt that the US is wont to do when a president looks at reforming the government.

And/or civil war if they are reforming it so as to help minorities not be murdered.

Abomination:

Thaluikhain:

Abomination:
In that hypothetical situation, which presently does not exist in the United States, one would consider that the Constitution, or Bill of Rights, or whichever fundamental legislative ruling already provides protection against such views.

In theory, yes, in practice, to an extent. Legislation is only as good as it's applied, and it's not being applied terribly well.

Murder and racially motivated violence is happening right now. It's only a hypothetical situation for people not on the pointy end.

Abomination:
It is not up to the population to be one step to lynching someone for their (supposed, mind you) political views.

You mean it shouldn't be. Not quite the same thing. People taking the law into their own hands is a terrible solution, but if the law is failing people there's not many options left.

I could understand that if they were at least attacking the legislators, but they're targeting the voters.

The solution to the problem does lie in the democratic process, and it requires a top-down restructure. The US was SO close to an option there, but stumbled at the starting block. Here's hoping next election a candidate that is willing to break the status quo is nominated.

Edit: Of course, they would then have to survive the likely assassination attempt that the US is wont to do when a president looks at reforming the government.

Hitler wasn't stopped via the democratic process. King George wasn't stopped via the democratic process. The US's democratic process has been raped and near murdered by Republicans like McConnel, Barr and Kavanaugh. You are waiting for something to save us that doesn't exist anymore.

Plus Hillary got more votes but isn't President. That isn't democracy.

Abomination:

Sonmi:

Abomination:
Would it make you happy if I keep rattling on about how murder is bad and how racially motivated violence is abhorrent? If I do that enough do I earn enough points to finally say that members of the left are also capable of behaving in an unacceptable manner?

That would legitimately be better, yes. As PsychedelicDiamonds pointed out, there's a massive double standard in what is expected of people on the Left vs people on the Right. Hand-wringing about Antifa ain't going to lead us anywhere when the opposing side refuses to own up to its far more serious crimes.

I think we've come full circle with whataboutisims here.

"Antifa does not behave in an acceptable manner."
"But what about Trump?"

The fact that Trump does bad things does not excuse Antifa's actions.

Nobody here is excusing the Right, they are condemning the actions of extreme left leaning individuals.

I didn't do any of these things the Right has gotten up to, I have not advocated for any of it - but I still have to mention all of it before I criticise people for attacking others for having opposing political beliefs?

It's not a question of "What about Trump?", it's a question of "Why are you focusing on left-leaning violence while right-wing violence and terrorism is far, far worse, both in terms of intensity and in terms of happening more regularly?" all while we're in a thread covering Trump specifically.

And yeah, I would absolutely mention context before criticizing Antifa's (and left-wing) methods. People screaming and whinging about Antifa without putting things in perspective is the reason why some many right-wingers think they are such a menace to society. It fuels the Western right's perpetual victimhood complex.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 . . . 21 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here