US Politics

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**cuda1179**

CptJake wrote:
Interesting graphic:

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-11-09/trump-redefined-us-politics-after-hillary-spent-nearly-twice-much-vote-nothing

I think that one thing everyone can agree on (even if you were a Hillary supporter) is that it is nice to see that the candidate that VASTLY outspent the other didn't get a chance to buy the Presidency.

**treslibras**

More Than 400 Incidents of Hateful Harassment and Intimidation Since the Election

Now who would have thought that??

**feeder**

Alternatively, it's a brave new world in which traditional media and being prepared, professional and surrounding yourself with a large, well organized team doesn't mean gak when you can just shout increasingly ridiculous lies until you are voted into office.

**Easy E**

feeder wrote:
Alternatively, it's a brave new world in which traditional media and being prepared, professional and surrounding yourself with a large, well organized team doesn't mean gak when you can just shout increasingly ridiculous lies until you are voted into office.

I for one am really looking forward to Ass: the Movie to be released. I predict it will sweep the Academy Awards and win best screenplay.

**cuda1179**

treslibras wrote:
More Than 400 Incidents of Hateful Harassment and Intimidation Since the Election

Now who would have thought that??

Well, what is the baseline for a "normal" level of harassment? Not that any level is okay, I just want to know if it went up or down. Also, I would like to point out that several of the harassing instances have been proven to be false, such as the muslim woman that claimed assailants ripped off her hajib. I also believe they are undercounting the anti-trump attacks. They say there are 20, yet youtube videos alone for that time period show almost that many, and I somehow doubt they were all recorded and posted on the internet.

**feeder**

Easy E wrote:
feeder wrote:
Alternatively, it's a brave new world in which traditional media and being prepared, professional and surrounding yourself with a large, well organized team doesn't mean gak when you can just shout increasingly ridiculous lies until you are voted into office.

I for one am really looking forward to Ass: the Movie to be released. I predict it will sweep the Academy Awards and win best screenplay.

I'm not really a movie guy. I am looking forwards to getting a hand release while I get my taxes done though

Automatically Appended Next Post:

cuda1179 wrote:
treslibras wrote:
More Than 400 Incidents of Hateful Harassment and Intimidation Since the Election

Now who would have thought that??

Well, what is the baseline for a "normal" level of harassment? Not that any level is okay, I just want to know if it went up or down. Also, I would like to point out that several of the harassing instances have been proven to be false, such as the muslim woman that claimed assailants ripped off her hajib. I also believe they are undercounting the anti-trump attacks. They say there are 20, yet youtube videos alone for that time period show almost that many, and I somehow doubt they were all recorded and posted on the internet.

Is it really a stretch to imagine that racists are emboldened to act when the new pres was elected on the back of explictly racist rhetoric? Whataboutism helps no one here.

**whembly**

treslibras wrote:
More Than 400 Incidents of Hateful Harassment and Intimidation Since the Election

Now who would have thought that??

SPLC is an absolute joke. I wouldn't trust them at all.

**djones520**

whembly wrote:
treslibras wrote:
More Than 400 Incidents of Hateful Harassment and Intimidation Since the Election

Now who would have thought that??

SPLC is an absolute joke. I wouldn't trust them at all.

You can't outright dismiss SPLC. They do provide some good info. This article though, I just find its investigation methods suspect. It does seem to be presenting a lot of hearsay as fact, and not addressing it as unverified instances. Some of it, likely a very small margin, will be false flag. It also doesn't seem to show the anti-white/republican harassment that we've seen posted in this thread specifically.

I'd say fact of the matter, reporting of harassment/hate crime is definitely up. There has been a ton of violence/rhetoric out there since the election occurred. One thing I'll take note of though, that it seems to be cooling down over the last week, which is certainly good. Hopefully the trend continues.

**feeder**

whembly wrote:
treslibras wrote:
More Than 400 Incidents of Hateful Harassment and Intimidation Since the Election

Now who would have thought that??

SPLC is an absolute joke. I wouldn't trust them at all.

Charity Navigator gives them a good review, in particular giving a nearly perfect score for Accountability and Transparency. I think "absolute joke" is a tad hyperbolic.

**cuda1179**

feeder wrote:
[Is it really a stretch to imagine that racists are emboldened to act when the new pres was elected on the back of explictly racist rhetoric? Whataboutism helps no one here.

Um.... Yes? I'm not saying that racist weren't inspired. What I'm saying is, were they more inspired than before? SPLC seems to want to lay all the blame at Trump's feet when much of that harassment was going to happen anyway (or not at all in the case of the hoaxes).

**djones520**

cuda1179 wrote:
feeder wrote:
[Is it really a stretch to imagine that racists are emboldened to act when the new pres was elected on the back of explictly racist rhetoric? Whataboutism helps no one here.

Um.... Yes? I'm not saying that racist weren't inspired. What I'm saying is, were they more inspired than before? SPLC seems to want to lay all the blame at Trump's feet when much of that harassment was going to happen anyway (or not at all in the case of the hoaxes).

I think that is fair. What was the amount of harassment occurring a week before the election? AKA, what was the control?

**feeder**

Well, in my personal experience, my little socialist Canadian town went from "the odd gakhead whispering slurs at girls in hijabs on the bus" to "trucks full of MAGA hats driving real slow past the mosque, laying on the horn" on Nov 9th.

**Ustrello**

So trump supporters are now saying the Japanese internment camps of world war two are setting a precedent for doing the same to Muslims. And who says the donald isn't racist or xenophobic again?

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/11/japanese-internment-camps-muslims-231538

A spokesman for the pro-Trump Great America PAC cited World War II Japanese internment camps as "precedent" for President-elect Donald Trump's discussed plan for a Muslim registry system.

Carl Higbie, a former Navy SEAL, appeared on Fox News' "The Kelly File" to argue in favor of the plan, which Kansas Secretary of State Kris Kobach said in a Reuters interview is being modeled after the highly controversial National Security Entry-Exit Registration System implemented after the Sept. 11 terror attacks.

Confronted with questions about the constitutionality of such a plan, Higbie cited history, in particular the forced relocation and incarceration of Japanese Americans following the attack on Pearl Harbor during World War II.

"We've done it based on race, we've done it based on religion, we've done it based on region," he said. "We've done it with Iran back — back a while ago. We did it during World War II with [the] Japanese."

Pressed by host Megyn Kelly on whether he was suggesting re-implementing the internment camps, Higbie said no, before adding: "I'm just saying there is precedent for it."

Automatically Appended Next Post:

feeder wrote:
whembly wrote:
treslibras wrote:
More Than 400 Incidents of Hateful Harassment and Intimidation Since the Election

Now who would have thought that??

SPLC is an absolute joke. I wouldn't trust them at all.

Charity Navigator gives them a good review, in particular giving a nearly perfect score for Accountability and Transparency. I think "absolute joke" is a tad hyperbolic.

A R hating the SPLC? What noooooooo

**shasolenzabi**

And on 60minutes he has told those hate groups to behave, and stop being mean to people. I am wondering if the man simply trolled his way, and now sees what he has gotten himself into, and is shifting left on issues once he grasps the nature of the far right with it's mean spirited methods against the poor and minorities. (he is being exposed to the crazier folks in DC now face to face)

**djones520**

Ustrello wrote:
So trump supporters are now saying the Japanese internment camps of world war two are setting a precedent for doing the same to Muslims. And who says the donald isn't racist or xenophobic again?

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/11/japanese-internment-camps-muslims-231538

A spokesman for the pro-Trump Great America PAC cited World War II Japanese internment camps as "precedent" for President-elect Donald Trump's discussed plan for a Muslim registry system.

Carl Higbie, a former Navy SEAL, appeared on Fox News' "The Kelly File" to argue in favor of the plan, which Kansas Secretary of State Kris Kobach said in a Reuters interview is being modeled after the highly controversial National Security Entry-Exit Registration System implemented after the Sept. 11 terror attacks.

Confronted with questions about the constitutionality of such a plan, Higbie cited history, in particular the forced relocation and incarceration of Japanese Americans following the attack on Pearl Harbor during World War II.

"We've done it based on race, we've done it based on religion, we've done it based on region," he said. "We've done it with Iran back — back a while ago. We did it during World War II with [the] Japanese."

Pressed by host Megyn Kelly on whether he was suggesting re-implementing the internment camps, Higbie said no, before adding: "I'm just saying there is precedent for it."

Is he wrong?

Is there not a precedent for it?

He did say that it is not a suggestion to re-implement it, per your quote. He is absolutely right though that our government has repeatedly in the past round up members of our society and placed them in camps out of fear. This specific precedent was set by a Democrat President, House, and Senate. So we can stop pretending it's a one party issue.

**sirlynchmob**

shasolenzabi wrote:
And on 60minutes he has told those hate groups to behave, and stop being mean to people. I am wondering if the man simply trolled his way, and now sees what he has gotten himself into, and is shifting left on issues once he grasps the nature of the far right with it's mean spirited methods against the poor and minorities. (he is being exposed to the crazier folks in DC now face to face)

Those crazier folks though are the ones he's giving positions to in his cabinet and transition team. Which from what I hear is a nightmare and those close to the situation are warning others to avoid the trump administration at all costs.

**Ustrello**

djones520 wrote:
Ustrello wrote:
So trump supporters are now saying the Japanese internment camps of world war two are setting a precedent for doing the same to Muslims. And who says the donald isn't racist or xenophobic again?

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/11/japanese-internment-camps-muslims-231538

A spokesman for the pro-Trump Great America PAC cited World War II Japanese internment camps as "precedent" for President-elect Donald Trump's discussed plan for a Muslim registry system.

Carl Higbie, a former Navy SEAL, appeared on Fox News' "The Kelly File" to argue in favor of the plan, which Kansas Secretary of State Kris Kobach said in a Reuters interview is being modeled after the highly controversial National Security Entry-Exit Registration System implemented after the Sept. 11 terror attacks.

Confronted with questions about the constitutionality of such a plan, Higbie cited history, in particular the forced relocation and incarceration of Japanese Americans following the attack on Pearl Harbor during World War II.

"We've done it based on race, we've done it based on religion, we've done it based on region," he said. "We've done it with Iran back — back a while ago. We did it during World War II with [the] Japanese."

Pressed by host Megyn Kelly on whether he was suggesting re-implementing the internment camps, Higbie said no, before adding: "I'm just saying there is precedent for it."

Is he wrong?

Is there not a precedent for it?

He did say that it is not a suggestion to re-implement it, per your quote. He is absolutely right though that our government has repeatedly in the past round up members of our society and placed them in camps out of fear. This specific precedent was set by a Democrat President, House, and Senate. So we can stop pretending it's a one party issue.

So you have a candidate running on the platform of creating a registry for a specific group of people and then you have a surrogate coming on and saying well there is precedent for concentrating them in camps but he said we wont do it.

Then why even bring it up in the first place? The only time you would bring something as horrible as that up is if you were thinking about actually doing it.

**Tannhauser42**

cuda1179 wrote:
CptJake wrote:
Interesting graphic:

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-11-09/trump-redefined-us-politics-after-hillary-spent-nearly-twice-much-vote-nothing

I think that one thing everyone can agree on (even if you were a Hillary supporter) is that it is nice to see that the candidate that VASTLY outspent the other didn't get a chance to buy the Presidency.

I would be curious, though, to see an addition to that chart comparing all the free press coverage they got. How much screen time on the news, how many news articles, etc. I know that's largely impossible, but I suspect such a chart would show a pretty sizable amount for Trump in comparison.

**Easy E**

This is pretty much what happened when Jesse Ventura won the governorship in MN. The political class all unified against the "outsider", shut him down completely.

Then the person who led the opposition was elected to the Governorship the following election. Eventually, that obstructionist ran for President. You may have heard of T-Paw?

I see something similar happening with Trump. I hate Trump, but I am not sure he will ever really get a fair chance to do any of the stuff he claims he wants to do.

**gorgon**

Do not make FTFY posts

**Prestor Jon**

Kanluwen wrote:

Your continued argument is further evidence of the hypocrisy I was highlighting. Byrd is a former KKK leader who had a change of heart so his past association is no longer held against him. Trump has never been a member of the KKK but because he is endorsed by somebody who used to be a leader of the KKK Trump is considered racist. Just because people with a certain viewpoint support a given candidate that doesn't meant that the candidate holds that same viewpoint.

Sure, it doesn't mean that the candidate holds the same viewpoint.

Appointing someone like Bannon does.

Aside from the two anti-Semitic statements his exwife alleges he made, what exactly has Bannon said or done that makes you think he's such a horrible person?

This CNBC article about Bannon I read yesterday makes him sound like Bernie Sanders.

Steve Bannon could be Wall Street's worst enemy
Jeff Cox | @JeffCoxCNBCcom
Wednesday, 16 Nov 2016 | 12:30 PM ET

Wall Street may find a testy relationship with Donald Trump's White House if comments by one of his senior advisers are any indication.

In a presentation Steve Bannon gave during a conference at the Vatican in 2014, the Trump confidant ripped into big banks and their role in the 2008 financial crisis.

He rued that no one ever was held accountable, which he said helped fuel populist fury and groups like the tea party, according to a transcript of his remarks that Buzzfeed published Wednesday.

Bannon back then approached the issue of bailouts that accompanied the crisis with a religious zeal as he spoke with the Vatican as a backdrop:

For Christians, and particularly for those who believe in the underpinnings of the Judeo-Christian West, I don't believe that we should have a bailout. I think the bailouts in 2008 were wrong. And I think, you look in hindsight, it was a lot of misinformation that was presented about the bailouts of the banks in the West.

The stock market generally and bank stocks in particular have been in strong rally mode since Trump defeated Hillary Clinton last week, though the market and bank shares pulled back Wednesday. However, the relationship could be strained between the president-elect and the financial community.

At the conference, the former Goldman Sachs investment banker was asked about poverty and proceeded to riff on the role banks played:

The 2008 crisis, I think the financial crisis — which, by the way, I don't think we've come through — is really driven I believe by the greed, much of it driven by the greed of the investment banks. My old firm, Goldman Sachs — traditionally the best banks are leveraged 8:1. When we had the financial crisis in 2008, the investment banks were leveraged 35:1.

After diagnosing the conditions that led to the crisis, he talked about the fallout, or lack thereof, for the financial engineers who helped drive up risk and create the Great Recession but never really had to pay the price:

Particularly the fact — think about it — not one criminal charge has ever been brought to any bank executive associated with 2008 crisis. And in fact, it gets worse. No bonuses and none of their equity was taken. So part of the prime drivers of the wealth that they took in the 15 years leading up to the crisis was not hit at all, and I think that's one of the fuels of this populist revolt that we're seeing as the tea party. So I think there are many, many measures, particularly about getting the banks on better footing, making them address all the liquid assets they have. I think you need a real cleanup of the banks balance sheets.

The Republican Party raised eyebrows at its convention in July, a month before Bannon joined the Trump campaign, when it approved a plank to reinstitute the Glass-Steagall law that separated commercial and investment banking.

Bannon advocated breaking up the financial supermarkets during his Vatican speech:

In addition, I think you really need to go back and make banks do what they do: Commercial banks lend money, and investment banks invest in entrepreneurs and to get away from this trading — you know, the hedge fund securitization, which they've all become basically trading operations and securitizations and not put capital back and really grow businesses and to grow the economy.

Big bankers and hedge funds, he said, "have never really been held accountable for what they did [and that] has fueled much of the anger in the tea party movement in the United States."

The Trump campaign did not respond to a request for comment or to challenge or validate Bannon's remarks.

**Spinner**

djones520 wrote:
Ustrello wrote:
So trump supporters are now saying the Japanese internment camps of world war two are setting a precedent for doing the same to Muslims. And who says the donald isn't racist or xenophobic again?

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/11/japanese-internment-camps-muslims-231538

A spokesman for the pro-Trump Great America PAC cited World War II Japanese internment camps as "precedent" for President-elect Donald Trump's discussed plan for a Muslim registry system.

Carl Higbie, a former Navy SEAL, appeared on Fox News' "The Kelly File" to argue in favor of the plan, which Kansas Secretary of State Kris Kobach said in a Reuters interview is being modeled after the highly controversial National Security Entry-Exit Registration System implemented after the Sept. 11 terror attacks.

Confronted with questions about the constitutionality of such a plan, Higbie cited history, in particular the forced relocation and incarceration of Japanese Americans following the attack on Pearl Harbor during World War II.

"We've done it based on race, we've done it based on religion, we've done it based on region," he said. "We've done it with Iran back — back a while ago. We did it during World War II with [the] Japanese."

Pressed by host Megyn Kelly on whether he was suggesting re-implementing the internment camps, Higbie said no, before adding: "I'm just saying there is precedent for it."

Is he wrong?

Is there not a precedent for it?

He did say that it is not a suggestion to re-implement it, per your quote. He is absolutely right though that our government has repeatedly in the past round up members of our society and placed them in camps out of fear. This specific precedent was set by a Democrat President, House, and Senate. So we can stop pretending it's a one party issue.

He's not wrong. There is a precedent.

A sane person would be saying 'there is precedent for scared people doing something awful; we need to remember what we, as a nation, are capable of doing, and refrain from doing it in the future.'

What he appears to be saying is 'Oh, we did this stupid, bigoted thing before. Obviously, we're not going to do it again, but we've done internment camps before. Why not do a national registry?'

And can we stop with the 'oh, well, DEMOCRATS DID IT BEFORE' stuff? It's a one-party issue now. One party just elected an open racist suggesting that we ban people from the United States of America based on religion. If the Democrats suggested all Baptists should be barred from public assembly because the Westboro Baptist Church are donkey-caves, I'd be all over them about it, but somehow they've managed to avoid doing that.

**Prestor Jon**

treslibras wrote:
More Than 400 Incidents of Hateful Harassment and Intimidation Since the Election

Now who would have thought that??

It's really not much different from what happened when Obama got elected.

From this article that was previously posted:

Like the rash of racist attacks that followed the election of Barack Obama in 2008 and, more recently, the “wave of hate crimes and hate incidents [that] washed over the U.K.” after this summer’s Brexit vote to leave the European Union, Potok said he predicts the current swell in post-election incidents will “peter out over the course of a couple of weeks.”

And here is a summation of the FBI's annual report:

Hate crimes in the United States ticked back up in 2015, after a 20-year low the year before, fueled in part by a 67 percent increase in crimes against Muslims, according to an FBI report released today.

Crimes against religious groups overall were up by 23 percent since 2014 and anti-black, white and LGBT incidents were all up last year as well. Most incidents -- nearly 30 percent -- in 2015 were anti-black crimes, the data show.

Crimes ran the gamut from simple assault to murder and rape.

In 2015, there were 257 anti-Muslim hate crimes, compared to 154 the year before, the data show. Overall hate crimes were up just under 7 percent, to 5,850 reported incidents.

https://gma.yahoo.com/anti-muslim-hate-crimes-67-percent-fbi-says-081130946--abc-news-topstories.html

So there was already a small uptick in hate crime before 2016 even started and that increase in 2015 came after a 20 year low in hate crimes. A nation the size of a continent containing 320,000,000 people and we have less than 6,000 hate crimes annually.

**feeder**

Prestor Jon wrote:
Kanluwen wrote:

Your continued argument is further evidence of the hypocrisy I was highlighting. Byrd is a former KKK leader who had a change of heart so his past association is no longer held against him. Trump has never been a member of the KKK but because he is endorsed by somebody who used to be a leader of the KKK Trump is considered racist. Just because people with a certain viewpoint support a given candidate that doesn't meant that the candidate holds that same viewpoint.

Sure, it doesn't mean that the candidate holds the same viewpoint.

Appointing someone like Bannon does.

Aside from the two anti-Semitic statements his exwife alleges he made, what exactly has Bannon said or done that makes you think he's such a horrible person?

He is the head of Breitbart, the website that takes "truthiness" to a whole new level of malicious absurdity. He's made a fortune selling stupid lies, and undeniably the world would be better off without his contributions to the public sphere.

**whembly**

gorgon wrote:
whembly wrote:
treslibras wrote:
More Than 400 Incidents of Hateful Harassment and Intimidation Since the Election

Now who would have thought that??

SPLC doesn't fit my agenda, unlike all the questionable sources I cite here all the time. I wouldn't trust them at all.

Fixed your typo.

Man, I'm not even a Dem, but Jesus.

That's breaking the rulez man.

Nevermind that SPLC put Ben fething Carson on their extremist list, before forcing to remove him after much criticisms.

Not to mention other numerous issues over the years that thoroughly discredits SPLC.

One can acknowledge that this organization began its mission during the Civil Rights era to help those who had been victimized by civil rights violations by filing suits on their behalf. Those actions should be praised and lauded.

But, the current operation of SPLC looks nothing like the civil rights era-SPLC.

Now, it enjoys massive fundraising footprint and works to label any opposing political views as 'hate' as determined by the SPLC.

**CptJake**

Prestor Jon wrote:

In 2015, there were 257 anti-Muslim hate crimes, compared to 154 the year before, the data show. Overall hate crimes were up just under 7 percent, to 5,850 reported incidents.
https://gma.yahoo.com/anti-muslim-hate-crimes-67-percent-fbi-says-081130946--abc-news-topstories.html

So there was already a small uptick in hate crime before 2016 even started and that increase in 2015 came after a 20 year low in hate crimes. A nation the size of a continent containing 320,000,000 people and we have less than 6,000 hate crimes annually.

Also interesting:

Of the 1,402 victims of anti-religious hate crimes:

52.1 percent were victims of crimes motivated by their offenders’ anti-Jewish bias.
21.9 percent were victims of anti-Islamic (Muslim) bias.

https://ucr.fbi.gov/hate-crime/2015/topic-pages/victims_final

So Jewish folks are victimized quite a bit too. About 2% of the US population is Jewish, 1% Muslim, so even with that taken into account hate crimes against Jews are more common.

**ender502**

Just Tony wrote:
ender502 wrote:
Just Tony wrote:
Prestor Jon wrote:By that logic every Democrat that Robert Byrd ever endorsed and any Democrat that cosponsored or supported any of the legislation he proposed in the Senate is a racist. Guilt by association is pretty weak sauce dude.

Hillary Clinton lists Robert Byrd as one of her mentors, and nobody calls her a racist, so I definitely empathize. I'll say it again for the benefit of everyone: at this point the only thing I care about is financial and border security. As long as I can support and spoil my family, my own personal social viewpoints come firmly in last place. I'd hope that there'd still be a balanced view when it comes to social issues, but I'm not holding my breath.

Well trump will at least give you back handed border security. With as lousy as the economy will be there wont be anyone wanting to get in here! Then we can pick the strawberries!

That'll protect you from all those dangerous produce pickers. Though not from terrorists.

So the economy is going to tank, right? An armchair economist calls that? We're talking about the same plan that WAS successful during Reagan's presidency and part of Bush's, until he broke from those policies? Yeah, we're doomed.

And more than terrorists are jeopardizing the security of the nation, but not in your world apparently. I say once again, ask Casey Chadwick or Kathryn Steinle how they feel about the lack of border security. You'll need a necromancer, though.

ender502 wrote:
infinite_array wrote:
Just Tony wrote:
Prestor Jon wrote:By that logic every Democrat that Robert Byrd ever endorsed and any Democrat that cosponsored or supported any of the legislation he proposed in the Senate is a racist. Guilt by association is pretty weak sauce dude.

Hillary Clinton lists Robert Byrd as one of her mentors, and nobody calls her a racist, so I definitely empathize. I'll say it again for the benefit of everyone: at this point the only thing I care about is financial and border security. As long as I can support and spoil my family, my own personal social viewpoints come firmly in last place. I'd hope that there'd still be a balanced view when it comes to social issues, but I'm not holding my breath.

Oh great, so we're back to willful ignorance on Byrd.

Is no one going to mention the fact that Robert Byrd actually managed to change his life, disavowed the KKK, and became a civil rights supporter? To the point at which, at his death, the NAACP wrote:

NAACP MOURNS THE PASSING OF U.S. SENATOR ROBERT BYRD

June 29, 2010
Longest Serving Member of Congress Became a Champion for Civil Rights and Liberties

WASHINGTON, DC - The NAACP is saddened by the passing of United States Senator Robert Byrd. Byrd, the longest serving member of congress was first elected to the U.S. House from in 1952 and was elected Senator in 1958. Byrd passed away this morning at the age of 92.

"Senator Byrd reflects the transformative power of this nation," stated NAACP President and CEO Benjamin Todd Jealous. "Senator Byrd went from being an active member of the KKK to a being a stalwart supporter of the Civil Rights Act, the Voting Rights Act and many other pieces of seminal legislation that advanced the civil rights and liberties of our country.

"Senator Byrd came to consistently support the NAACP civil rights agenda, doing well on the NAACP Annual Civil Rights Report Card. He stood with us on many issues of crucial importance to our members from the reauthorization of the Voting Rights Act, the historic health care legislation of 2010 and his support for the Hate Crimes Prevention legislation," stated Hilary O. Shelton, Director of the NAACP Washington Bureau and Senior Vice President for Advocacy and Policy. "Senator Byrd was a master of the Senate Rules, and helped strategize passage of legislation that helped millions of Americans. He will be sorely missed."

Founded in 1909, the NAACP is the nation's oldest and largest civil rights organization. Its members throughout the United States and the world are the premier advocates for civil rights in their communities, conducting voter mobilization and monitoring equal opportunity in the public and private sectors.

Trump supporters and Hillary haters have been trafficking in ignorance for so long why would they change now?

ender502

Yet for some reason the liberal shills deal in nothing but truth and facts? That's hilarious.

In regards to threats to the lives of Americans....more Americans die every year from expired food. Where is the outrage? What about deaths attributable pollution related asthma? What!? Still no outrage? That's ok. You can use the worst examples as why we should be terrified of immigrants. But that toe of using tragedy as justification for stereotyping people is just one layer of BS over straight racism. Look, just admit your racism. You'll feel better. David duke says its ok now.

In regards to truth... Compared to the Republicans democrats are babes in the woods about lying. At least, about economics. Here is an example of yor lie. Reagans plan didn't rev the economy. All it did was concentrate wealth that never trickled down. But according t you it worked until he stopped following his own plan? Then it lasted less than year. Reagan raised taxes less than a year after lowering them. No worries though. It only hit the poor and middle class. Republicans don't care about them.

Ender502

**treslibras**

Prestor Jon wrote:
treslibras wrote:
More Than 400 Incidents of Hateful Harassment and Intimidation Since the Election

Now who would have thought that??

It's really not much different from what happened when Obama got elected.

From this article that was previously posted:

Like the rash of racist attacks that followed the election of Barack Obama in 2008 and, more recently, the “wave of hate crimes and hate incidents [that] washed over the U.K.” after this summer’s Brexit vote to leave the European Union, Potok said he predicts the current swell in post-election incidents will “peter out over the course of a couple of weeks.”

And here is a summation of the FBI's annual report:

Hate crimes in the United States ticked back up in 2015, after a 20-year low the year before, fueled in part by a 67 percent increase in crimes against Muslims, according to an FBI report released today.

Crimes against religious groups overall were up by 23 percent since 2014 and anti-black, white and LGBT incidents were all up last year as well. Most incidents -- nearly 30 percent -- in 2015 were anti-black crimes, the data show.

Crimes ran the gamut from simple assault to murder and rape.

In 2015, there were 257 anti-Muslim hate crimes, compared to 154 the year before, the data show. Overall hate crimes were up just under 7 percent, to 5,850 reported incidents.

https://gma.yahoo.com/anti-muslim-hate-crimes-67-percent-fbi-says-081130946--abc-news-topstories.html

So there was already a small uptick in hate crime before 2016 even started and that increase in 2015 came after a 20 year low in hate crimes. A nation the size of a continent containing 320,000,000 people and we have less than 6,000 hate crimes annually.

Well, figures on "hate crime" are a bit wanky to begin with. But thanks for the intel!

So, your elections always come with a rise in violence against minorities? Or is it a reaction to liberal transformation of society, the growing income gaps, or a resurgence of a racism that was always there?

We had and have similar strains running through German society, especially in Eastern Germany, where nazism/racism was only superficially covered up by socialist propaganda, and saw a swift return when West Germany destroyed the (rotten) industry of East Germany quasi overnight.

There is a pretty straight-forward connection between economic downturn/poverty, lack of democratic-liberal education, scape-goating immigrants/foreign influences, and a rise in violence against both liberal-democratic institutions and immigrants, both in language and in deed. And the more often these elements can voice their opinion unchallenged, and especially when such opinions are raised by people in power, the more accepted and "OK" it becomes to participate in that violent rhetoric and actions.
So this may very well be the beginning of a much worse trend, seeing how Trump will most likely crash US economy further and people like Steve Bannon moving into the White House.

**Kilkrazy**

Just Tony wrote:
ender502 wrote:
Just Tony wrote:
Prestor Jon wrote:By that logic every Democrat that Robert Byrd ever endorsed and any Democrat that cosponsored or supported any of the legislation he proposed in the Senate is a racist. Guilt by association is pretty weak sauce dude.

Hillary Clinton lists Robert Byrd as one of her mentors, and nobody calls her a racist, so I definitely empathize. I'll say it again for the benefit of everyone: at this point the only thing I care about is financial and border security. As long as I can support and spoil my family, my own personal social viewpoints come firmly in last place. I'd hope that there'd still be a balanced view when it comes to social issues, but I'm not holding my breath.

Well trump will at least give you back handed border security. With as lousy as the economy will be there wont be anyone wanting to get in here! Then we can pick the strawberries!

That'll protect you from all those dangerous produce pickers. Though not from terrorists.

So the economy is going to tank, right? An armchair economist calls that? We're talking about the same plan that WAS successful during Reagan's presidency and part of Bush's, until he broke from those policies? Yeah, we're doomed.

And more than terrorists are jeopardizing the security of the nation, but not in your world apparently. I say once again, ask Casey Chadwick or Kathryn Steinle how they feel about the lack of border security. You'll need a necromancer, though.

ender502 wrote:
infinite_array wrote:
Just Tony wrote:
Prestor Jon wrote:By that logic every Democrat that Robert Byrd ever endorsed and any Democrat that cosponsored or supported any of the legislation he proposed in the Senate is a racist. Guilt by association is pretty weak sauce dude.

Hillary Clinton lists Robert Byrd as one of her mentors, and nobody calls her a racist, so I definitely empathize. I'll say it again for the benefit of everyone: at this point the only thing I care about is financial and border security. As long as I can support and spoil my family, my own personal social viewpoints come firmly in last place. I'd hope that there'd still be a balanced view when it comes to social issues, but I'm not holding my breath.

Oh great, so we're back to willful ignorance on Byrd.

Is no one going to mention the fact that Robert Byrd actually managed to change his life, disavowed the KKK, and became a civil rights supporter? To the point at which, at his death, the NAACP wrote:

NAACP MOURNS THE PASSING OF U.S. SENATOR ROBERT BYRD

June 29, 2010
Longest Serving Member of Congress Became a Champion for Civil Rights and Liberties

WASHINGTON, DC - The NAACP is saddened by the passing of United States Senator Robert Byrd. Byrd, the longest serving member of congress was first elected to the U.S. House from in 1952 and was elected Senator in 1958. Byrd passed away this morning at the age of 92.

"Senator Byrd reflects the transformative power of this nation," stated NAACP President and CEO Benjamin Todd Jealous. "Senator Byrd went from being an active member of the KKK to a being a stalwart supporter of the Civil Rights Act, the Voting Rights Act and many other pieces of seminal legislation that advanced the civil rights and liberties of our country.

"Senator Byrd came to consistently support the NAACP civil rights agenda, doing well on the NAACP Annual Civil Rights Report Card. He stood with us on many issues of crucial importance to our members from the reauthorization of the Voting Rights Act, the historic health care legislation of 2010 and his support for the Hate Crimes Prevention legislation," stated Hilary O. Shelton, Director of the NAACP Washington Bureau and Senior Vice President for Advocacy and Policy. "Senator Byrd was a master of the Senate Rules, and helped strategize passage of legislation that helped millions of Americans. He will be sorely missed."

Founded in 1909, the NAACP is the nation's oldest and largest civil rights organization. Its members throughout the United States and the world are the premier advocates for civil rights in their communities, conducting voter mobilization and monitoring equal opportunity in the public and private sectors.

Trump supporters and Hillary haters have been trafficking in ignorance for so long why would they change now?

ender502

Yet for some reason the liberal shills deal in nothing but truth and facts? That's hilarious.

No but the analysis shows that right wing "alt-news" sites lie twice as much as Democrat alt sites, and their lies are more substantial.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

djones520 wrote:
cuda1179 wrote:
feeder wrote:
[Is it really a stretch to imagine that racists are emboldened to act when the new pres was elected on the back of explictly racist rhetoric? Whataboutism helps no one here.

Um.... Yes? I'm not saying that racist weren't inspired. What I'm saying is, were they more inspired than before? SPLC seems to want to lay all the blame at Trump's feet when much of that harassment was going to happen anyway (or not at all in the case of the hoaxes).

I think that is fair. What was the amount of harassment occurring a week before the election? AKA, what was the control?

The control is FBI UCR stats on hate crime going back years.

**infinite_array**

So, remember the gak Paul Ryan caught when he posted the Republican intern image that was a sea of white faces?

Well, now Mike Pence is at it:

Spoiler:

"Hey, can we push the half dozen women to the front of the crowd, please? And where's our token minority?"

Also, Trump's talking about doing a victory lap of rallies through all the states that he won. Sorry, but isn't there a job he's supposed to be preparing for?