Hate crimes

1Hacker0

@THEDENIER Racism is a belief. I accept that it is outright disgusting, but it is freedom of thought. I wouldn't consider the neonazi example as borderline racism, since it is just plain racism. I don't think Trump has ever said that Nazis were good, and his quote about illegal immigrants is true. 12 percent of them have murder sentences. Obama himself deported 1.5 million Mexicans who committed crimes. I think he should have deported them regardless, but it still proves that they commit excessive crimes. So Trump isn't borderline racism.

THEDENIER

@1Hacker0 Yes, I agree. Racist opinions are still opinions and may be heard. Trump has defended Nazi's http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-pol-trump-republicans-20170816-story.html. Yes, the devil incarnate, Obama. Your statistics are sourceless and meaningless. Even if we accept that that your statistics are true, they don't prove anything. You don't have any comparisons. Maybe 12% sentences, but what about native born Americans? Sure, Obama deported 1.5 million Mexicans for crimes, but how many native born Americans commit crimes? I on the other hand, will present some legitimate evidence. Read the following. http://thehill.com/latino/324607-reports-find-that-immigrants-commit-less-crime-than-us-born-citizens http://www.businessinsider.com/immigrants-commit-less-crime-than-native-born-americans-trump-speech-2017-3/#native-born-americans-commit-a-lot-more-crime-than-immigrants-2 https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/26/us/trump-illegal-immigrants-crime.html

CYDdharta

THEDENIER said:

@1Hacker0 Yes, I agree. Racist opinions are still opinions and may be heard. Trump has defended Nazi's http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-pol-trump-republicans-20170816-story.html.

  The only thing missing from your LA Times article is an actual quote from Trump defending neo-nazis.  You don't think it's because no such quote exists, do you?

1Hacker0

@THEDENIER The percentage of legal US murderers is 2.7%. And this is assuming that all murderers kill only one person. 

And like CYDdharta said there wasn't any quote in the first link. Probably because it does not exist.

The second link is giving me a 404 error.

1Hacker0

@THEDENIER The percentage of legal US murderers is 2.7%. And this is assuming that all murderers kill only one person. 

And like CYDdharta said there wasn't any quote in the first link. Probably because it does not exist.

The second link is giving me a 404 error.

THEDENIER

@1Hacker0 No, no you are right. There is no quote, I just lie for fun. Yes, there is a quote: "You had some very bad people in that group. But you also had people that were very fine people on both sides. You had people in that group – excuse me, excuse me. I saw the same pictures as you did. You had people in that group that were there to protest the taking down, of to them, a very, very important statue and the renaming of a park from Robert E. Lee to another name."  He just said there are very fine Neo-Nazi's. That is defending them. That last link was many different links, copy paste them one by one.

CYDdharta

THEDENIER said:

@1Hacker0 No, no you are right. There is no quote, I just lie for fun. Yes, there is a quote: "You had some very bad people in that group. But you also had people that were very fine people on both sides. You had people in that group – excuse me, excuse me. I saw the same pictures as you did. You had people in that group that were there to protest the taking down, of to them, a very, very important statue and the renaming of a park from Robert E. Lee to another name."  He just said there are very fine Neo-Nazi's. That is defending them. That last link was many different links, copy paste them one by one.

I know you had nothing.  Prove everyone in that group was a neo-nazi.

THEDENIER

CYDdharta said:

THEDENIER said:

@1Hacker0 No, no you are right. There is no quote, I just lie for fun. Yes, there is a quote: "You had some very bad people in that group. But you also had people that were very fine people on both sides. You had people in that group – excuse me, excuse me. I saw the same pictures as you did. You had people in that group that were there to protest the taking down, of to them, a very, very important statue and the renaming of a park from Robert E. Lee to another name."  He just said there are very fine Neo-Nazi's. That is defending them. That last link was many different links, copy paste them one by one.

I know you had nothing.  Prove everyone in that group was a neo-nazi.

Haha, calm down. You ask too much for little old me. Lets look at this logically, you are basically asking me to prove a negative. You are asking me to literally list everyone in the group and prove their political stance. Your arguments are getting weaker and weaker. I have an idea: list 5 people who were in the neo nazi group who assaulted the anti-protesters, who were not neo nazi's. Much easier than what you asked of me.

CYDdharta

THEDENIER said:

Haha, calm down. You ask too much for little old me. Lets look at this logically, you are basically asking me to prove a negative. You are asking me to literally list everyone in the group and prove their political stance. Your arguments are getting weaker and weaker. I have an idea: list 5 people who were in the neo nazi group who assaulted the anti-protesters, who were not neo nazi's. Much easier than what you asked of me.

I ask you to prove your argument, you tell me you can't (which I knew you wouldn't be able to do) because you can't prove a negative.  The simple fix is for you to stop using negative arguments.

There were considerably more than 5 emergency workers an police in the area.

THEDENIER

CYDdharta said:

THEDENIER said:

Haha, calm down. You ask too much for little old me. Lets look at this logically, you are basically asking me to prove a negative. You are asking me to literally list everyone in the group and prove their political stance. Your arguments are getting weaker and weaker. I have an idea: list 5 people who were in the neo nazi group who assaulted the anti-protesters, who were not neo nazi's. Much easier than what you asked of me.

I ask you to prove your argument, you tell me you can't (which I knew you wouldn't be able to do) because you can't prove a negative.  The simple fix is for you to stop using negative arguments.

There were considerably more than 5 emergency workers an police in the area.

You think that when Trump was referring to "both sides" he was referring to government workers? No, he was talking about the neo-nazi's and the counter-protesters. Please, don't ask the impossible of me, and just do a little work for yourself. My argument rests on an fairly logical foundation, that is past reasonable doubt (your doubt is unreasonable). Explain to me how I was using a negative argument. I said Trump said that there were good people on both sides in a blanket statement, which included white supremacists, which he has hesitated to condemn. You are now specifying his statement for him, saying "oh no, he was only referring to the reasonable folk in the group". If he wasn't afraid of losing his white supremacist voter base, then he would have made that distinction himself.

CYDdharta

THEDENIER said:

You think that when Trump was referring to "both sides" he was referring to government workers? No, he was talking about the neo-nazi's and the counter-protesters. Please, don't ask the impossible of me, and just do a little work for yourself. My argument rests on an fairly logical foundation, that is past reasonable doubt (your doubt is unreasonable). Explain to me how I was using a negative argument. I said Trump said that there were good people on both sides in a blanket statement, which included white supremacists, which he has hesitated to condemn. You are now specifying his statement for him, saying "oh no, he was only referring to the reasonable folk in the group". If he wasn't afraid of losing his white supremacist voter base, then he would have made that distinction himself.

Of course he was only referring to the reasonable people on both sides; those are obviously the good folk Trump was referring to.  That's why he called them good folk.  If you have an evidence, rather than the supposition you've been posting, that Trump was referring to someone else, please provide it.  If you find that to be an impossible task, that's only because you have made an invalid claim that you have no way of substantiating; in other words, a lie.

CYDdharta

THEDENIER said:

If he wasn't afraid of losing his white supremacist voter base, then he would have made that distinction himself.

I just met with FBI Director Christopher Wray and Attorney General Jeff Sessions.  The Department of Justice has opened a civil rights investigation into the deadly car attack that killed one innocent American and wounded 20 others.  To anyone who acted criminally in this weekend’s racist violence, you will be held fully accountable.  Justice will be delivered.
     
As I said on Saturday, we condemn in the strongest possible terms this egregious display of hatred, bigotry, and violence.  It has no place in America.
 
And as I have said many times before:  No matter the color of our skin, we all live under the same laws, we all salute the same great flag, and we are all made by the same almighty God.  We must love each other, show affection for each other, and unite together in condemnation of hatred, bigotry, and violence.  We must rediscover the bonds of love and loyalty that bring us together as Americans.
 
Racism is evil.  And those who cause violence in its name are criminals and thugs, including the KKK, neo-Nazis, white supremacists, and other hate groups that are repugnant to everything we hold dear as Americans.  
 
We are a nation founded on the truth that all of us are created equal.  We are equal in the eyes of our Creator.  We are equal under the law.  And we are equal under our Constitution.  Those who spread violence in the name of bigotry strike at the very core of America.

https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2017/08/14/statement-president-trump

Quite obviously, Pres Trump isn't interested in the white supremacist voter base.  Why would he be, considering how insignificant they are in numbers?

THEDENIER

Fair enough, but my original point about hate speech stands. 

CYDdharta

@THEDENIER ...and the refutation of your original point stands as well.

THEDENIER

@CYDdharta You realize that if an argument is refuted, it is no longer standing right? Therefor, a refutation of a point and the original point cannot both stand. Your original refutation of my point was that the hate crimes were fake, which you have yet to prove. I realize that I never made clear what I was conceding to you there. I am conceding that Trump is not an open Nazi sympathizer. I have not conceded that he is not racist, that hate crimes are not on the rise, or that racism in general is not on the rise. Those are the pillars of your argument, which you have yet to prove.

SnakesOfferingApples

@agsr

I say no because all crimes are hate crimes. If I go kill a white person, is it not because I hate that person? In the same way, if I kill a black guy, it's because I probably hate that individual. The race of the person is irrelevant, hate is hate. 

CYDdharta

@THEDENIER You haven't proven any of those points yet, either.  You may believe them to be true, but your beliefs are hardly facts.

THEDENIER

@CYDdharta Of course one's beliefs alone do not justify anything. I have already shown that hate crimes are on the rise (see earlier links), and that Trump's view of immigrants is false (see earlier links). I have provided sufficient evidence for my points to stand, and you need to provide similar evidence for them to fall. I don't need to spend time disproving every one of your rebuttals if the rebuttals are not backed by any evidence yet presented. What is presented without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. Following the same logic, what is presented with evidence must be refuted with evidence. I have presented evidence, if you wish to dismiss my point, then you must also present evidence.

CYDdharta

@THEDENIER I've already presented evidence that you've ignored, as I'm sure you will again.  The source of your "proof" of hate crimes being on the increase is so biased as to strain credibility; even so, any increase is minor.  On the other hand, as I have demonstrated, the number of FAKE hate crimes has risen substantially.  You have also failed to prove that illegals won't pose a significant risk.  As I posted previously, and you ignored;

The Office of Refugee Resettlement (ORR) surveyed illegal immigrant minors in its custody and found that 28 percent of them were gang members, according to Senate testimony.

http://dailycaller.com/2017/06/21/feds-more-than-a-quarter-of-illegal-immigrant-minors-in-our-care-are-gang-members/

Illegal youths posed a particular threat even before the influx of gang youths;

The Census Bureau estimates that the number of Hispanic juveniles in the U.S. will increase 37% between 2010 and 2030. This growth will bring the Hispanic proportion of the juvenile population to nearly 30% by 2030 and to 36% by 2050

https://www.ojjdp.gov/ojstatbb/nr2014/downloads/NR2014.pdf

As I said, you may believe you have proven something, but in reality, not so much.

THEDENIER

CYDdharta said:

@THEDENIER I've already presented evidence that you've ignored, as I'm sure you will again.  The source of your "proof" of hate crimes being on the increase is so biased as to strain credibility; even so, any increase is minor.  On the other hand, as I have demonstrated, the number of FAKE hate crimes has risen substantially.  You have also failed to prove that illegals won't pose a significant risk.  As I posted previously, and you ignored;

The Office of Refugee Resettlement (ORR) surveyed illegal immigrant minors in its custody and found that 28 percent of them were gang members, according to Senate testimony.

http://dailycaller.com/2017/06/21/feds-more-than-a-quarter-of-illegal-immigrant-minors-in-our-care-are-gang-members/

Illegal youths posed a particular threat even before the influx of gang youths;

The Census Bureau estimates that the number of Hispanic juveniles in the U.S. will increase 37% between 2010 and 2030. This growth will bring the Hispanic proportion of the juvenile population to nearly 30% by 2030 and to 36% by 2050

https://www.ojjdp.gov/ojstatbb/nr2014/downloads/NR2014.pdf

As I said, you may believe you have proven something, but in reality, not so much.

@CYDdharta I'm sure you realize that being in a gang is not a crime, if fact, notorious gangs in the US have had legal meetings where no one is arrested specifically because of that. Moreover, as I'm sure you can tell my what I have linked, the proportion people who commit actual violence among immigrant communities is less than that of native born Americans. Trump is accusing immigrants of being rapists and violent criminals, when the data does not show that. So you are saying that immigration needs to be controlled because of the quantity of those coming across the border? I totally agree with you, but that is not what Trump stated. Your final point is coming dangerously close to the "that's just your opinion". Sure, it is just my opinion, but that does not dissolve your intellectual responsibility to address it if you wish to make an argument. Finally, you have shown that fake hate crimes have happened, but I would appreciate it if you could like some websites that don't just give anecdotal accounts of specific occurrences but instead a proportion of the rise of hate crimes accounted for by fake hate crimes. Finally, rather than just dismissing multiple sources as all biased, present evidence that they are either constantly biased to such an extent that they cannot be trusted or 3-5 links including counter evidence.

CYDdharta

THEDENIER said:

@CYDdharta I'm sure you realize that being in a gang is not a crime, if fact, notorious gangs in the US have had legal meetings where no one is arrested specifically because of that. Moreover, as I'm sure you can tell my what I have linked, the proportion people who commit actual violence among immigrant communities is less than that of native born Americans. Trump is accusing immigrants of being rapists and violent criminals, when the data does not show that. So you are saying that immigration needs to be controlled because of the quantity of those coming across the border? I totally agree with you, but that is not what Trump stated. Your final point is coming dangerously close to the "that's just your opinion". Sure, it is just my opinion, but that does not dissolve your intellectual responsibility to address it if you wish to make an argument. Finally, you have shown that fake hate crimes have happened, but I would appreciate it if you could like some websites that don't just give anecdotal accounts of specific occurrences but instead a proportion of the rise of hate crimes accounted for by fake hate crimes. Finally, rather than just dismissing multiple sources as all biased, present evidence that they are either constantly biased to such an extent that they cannot be trusted or 3-5 links including counter evidence.

We're not talking about benign biker clubs that just get together to show off their new (or old) Harleys.  6 of the 10 most violent biker gangs are made up of members who are central or south American in origin.  As I've pointed out, and you have predictably ignored, Hispanic youths account for the highest rate per capita of juvenile incarcerations, and that population is expected to grow significantly.  Trump was right, illegal immigration accounts for far too many rapes and deaths. 

As for hate incidences, your sources don't bear out the point you are trying to make.  If anything, they show that Obama was responsible the rise in hate incidences, as hate incidences was on the rise before Trump was even elected.  Just as you can't prove that any rise in hate incidences was not caused by the wave of fake hate incidences, I cannot prove a rise was caused by this surge.  There simply is no data.  Most hate incidences go unsolved, and no  one is reporting the ratio of real hate incidences to fake ones.

CYDdharta

SilverishGoldNova

@THEDENIER

I need an explanation to how drawing symbols on walls is worse than assaulting people.

Also. "Trump recently stated that there are good neonazi's. He believes that there are good people among a group that wishes to commit genocide" When did he ever say this? Otherwise admit your strawman fallacy. 

And before you call me a "trump supporting racist": They were both puppets, who got others to support them by denying that.

THEDENIER

@SilverishGoldNova ;
I never said drawing symbols on the was was worse than assaulting people (strawman?). Moreover, you should read the above comments about me conceding that point to CYDdharta. I am sorry, I don't remember calling you a "trump supporting racist" but if I did, I sincerely apologize. The election is a totally separate issue.

CYDdharta

Gang membership may not be a crime, but it will likely soon be a deportable offense;

This week, Congress is joining the president in the fight to protect our young people with the introduction of H.R. 3697, the Criminal Alien Gang Member Removal Act. Under current law, membership in a criminal street gang does not make an immigrant inadmissible or deportable.

Introduced by Rep. Barbara Comstock (R-VA), this bill changes that and makes membership in a criminal street gang a deportable offense. This includes felony drug offenses, crimes of violence, and various offenses involving trafficking, identify theft, slavery, and intimidation. Read more about the legislation here.

http://www.speaker.gov/general/congress-combat-brutal-gang-violence

Vincent_Costanzo

I believe that the best way to ensure that we don't "otherize" parts of the population is to treat every member of the citizenry the same. Thus, the punishment should be the same for the same crime regardless of the demographics involved. If a white person beats a black person the same penalty should be inflicted if a black person beats a white person.

Vincent_Costanzo

@Vaulk to be fair, anyone who crosses the border illegally has already committed a criminal offense. Moreover, President Trump was not referring to Mexicans as a general term, he was referring specifically to illegal immigrants. While it's true that not all illegal immigrants bring drugs or crime, we can't have vast numbers of unknown variables coming into the country without proper documentation, background checks, or vetting. The same thing goes for the current refugee crisis. Imagine this, If I offer you a bowl of candies, then as you take a handful I tell you that most of the candies are perfectly safe, but three of them are laced with a deadly toxin. Are you still going to take that handful? We need to be able to check who is coming into the country so we don't get drugs, crime, or even terrorism.