Hate crimes increased 226% in places Trump held a campaign rally in 2016

[zonulet]

Can you provide a link where I can read the joyful comments of actual registered KKK members discussing the Mueller report?

[CaughtInTheMiddle]

@zonulet

Can you provide a link where I can read the joyful comments of actual registered KKK members discussing the Mueller report?

No.

Google it.

[zonulet]

I didn’t think so.

[CaughtInTheMiddle]

@zonulet

I didn’t think so.

They’re not hard to find. I’m certainly not gonna eat a TO because you won’t goggle.

[zonulet]

@CaughtInTheMiddle

@zonulet

I didn’t think so.

They’re not hard to find. I’m certainly not gonna eat a TO because you won’t goggle.

I didn’t think so.

[STODR]

So you hang out willingly on known racists websites. I could not lower myself that far to do that.

[CaughtInTheMiddle]

@zonulet

@CaughtInTheMiddle

@zonulet

I didn’t think so.

They’re not hard to find. I’m certainly not gonna eat a TO because you won’t goggle.

I didn’t think so.

Sorry. Not taking your bait to link directly to White Supremacists sites. That’s a TO here. If you really want to read them, which it appears you don’t, just google. They’re really happy.

[zonulet]

You have no proof of a site with “verified registered KKK white supremacist members” joyfully talking about the Mueller report. Turning this into some baited trap I have set for you to “eat a TOS violation” is another alt left tactic along with posting random crap left unchallenged to see what sticks. So much of that.

[CaughtInTheMiddle]

@zonulet

You have no proof of a site with “verified registered KKK white supremacist members” joyfully talking about the Mueller report. Turning this into some baited trap I have set for you to “eat a TOS violation” is another alt left tactic along with posting random crap left unchallenged to see what sticks. So much of that.

Well, other than the fact that it’s against the TOS to actually link to White Supremacists sites.

Again, it’s easy to google. Or you could just continue to argue without reading.

[zonulet]

@CaughtInTheMiddle

@zonulet

You have no proof of a site with “verified registered KKK white supremacist members” joyfully talking about the Mueller report. Turning this into some baited trap I have set for you to “eat a TOS violation” is another alt left tactic along with posting random crap left unchallenged to see what sticks. So much of that.

Well, other than the fact that it’s against the TOS to actually link to White Supremacists sites.

Again, it’s easy to google. Or you could just continue to argue without reading.

Carry on posting feelings fervently.

[CaughtInTheMiddle]

@zonulet

@CaughtInTheMiddle

@zonulet

You have no proof of a site with “verified registered KKK white supremacist members” joyfully talking about the Mueller report. Turning this into some baited trap I have set for you to “eat a TOS violation” is another alt left tactic along with posting random crap left unchallenged to see what sticks. So much of that.

Well, other than the fact that it’s against the TOS to actually link to White Supremacists sites.

Again, it’s easy to google. Or you could just continue to argue without reading.

Carry on posting feelings fervently.

Just read dude. It’s very educational.

[zonulet]

Why read when you can feel your way through life

[CaughtInTheMiddle]

@zonulet

Why read when you can feel your way through life

I get it. You don’t want to read.

[Optrader]

@WildRose

Read the “study” they compared “similar counties” whatever that means for “reported hate crimes” after the Trump rallies.

No listing of the supposed crimes committed.

No report of actual convictions.

No comparison of “hate crimes” reporting prior to the rallies for the counties.

The whole thing is a steaming pile.

The idea of hate crimes laws is nothing more than the leftist March toward the establishment of thought police. For our own good of course…

[Optrader]

@Samson_Corwell

@WildRose

The entire concept if flawed from the start and conflicts with The Constitution in numerous ways starting with “Equal Justice” and “Equal Application”.

Nope. If legislation is passed that only increases the severity of attacking a black person because of their race but NOT the same for attacking a white person because of their race, THEN it is conflict with the principle of equality before the law. If the legislation increases the penalty for attacking ANY person because of their race, then it does not violate the principle because the word “any” implies that the particular race of the person attacked does not matter.

@WildRose

It criminalizes thought as well.

No. It makes the punishment for crimes that are committed against someone on account of their race more severe. So what it is punishing is action.

Furthermore, if you really believe this, then you should also oppose:

• The distinction made between first-degree and second-degree murder.
• The existence of any of those charges that have “…with intent to…” in their name.
• Treating terrorists attacks as more severe than non-terrorist attacks.

If it’s racist, or a “hate crime” to exclude blacks or minorites from college simply because of race. Is it also racist to admit them simply because of race, especially if a white student who scored higher on the admissions test is not admitted because of quotas?

I’m guessing in advance libs will somehow justify this…

[Samson_Corwell]

@Optrader

@Samson_Corwell

@WildRose

The entire concept if flawed from the start and conflicts with The Constitution in numerous ways starting with “Equal Justice” and “Equal Application”.

Nope. If legislation is passed that only increases the severity of attacking a black person because of their race but NOT the same for attacking a white person because of their race, THEN it is conflict with the principle of equality before the law. If the legislation increases the penalty for attacking ANY person because of their race, then it does not violate the principle because the word “any” implies that the particular race of the person attacked does not matter.

@WildRose

It criminalizes thought as well.

No. It makes the punishment for crimes that are committed against someone on account of their race more severe. So what it is punishing is action.

Furthermore, if you really believe this, then you should also oppose:

• The distinction made between first-degree and second-degree murder.
• The existence of any of those charges that have “…with intent to…” in their name.
• Treating terrorists attacks as more severe than non-terrorist attacks.

If it’s racist, or a “hate crime” to exclude blacks or minorites from college simply because of race. Is it also racist to admit them simply because of race, especially if a white student who scored higher on the admissions test is not admitted because of quotas?

I’m guessing in advance libs will somehow justify this…

I thought the topic of this conversation is hate crime legislation. Are you making a swipe at my explanation that destroys WildRose’s argument.

[Optrader]

@Samson_Corwell

@Optrader

@Samson_Corwell

@WildRose

The entire concept if flawed from the start and conflicts with The Constitution in numerous ways starting with “Equal Justice” and “Equal Application”.

Nope. If legislation is passed that only increases the severity of attacking a black person because of their race but NOT the same for attacking a white person because of their race, THEN it is conflict with the principle of equality before the law. If the legislation increases the penalty for attacking ANY person because of their race, then it does not violate the principle because the word “any” implies that the particular race of the person attacked does not matter.

@WildRose

It criminalizes thought as well.

No. It makes the punishment for crimes that are committed against someone on account of their race more severe. So what it is punishing is action.

Furthermore, if you really believe this, then you should also oppose:

• The distinction made between first-degree and second-degree murder.
• The existence of any of those charges that have “…with intent to…” in their name.
• Treating terrorists attacks as more severe than non-terrorist attacks.

If it’s racist, or a “hate crime” to exclude blacks or minorites from college simply because of race. Is it also racist to admit them simply because of race, especially if a white student who scored higher on the admissions test is not admitted because of quotas?

I’m guessing in advance libs will somehow justify this…

I thought the topic of this conversation is hate crime legislation. Are you making a swipe at my explanation that destroys WildRose’s argument.

You’ve not understood his argument, let alone destroyed it.

[Samson_Corwell]

@Optrader

@Samson_Corwell

@Optrader

@Samson_Corwell

@WildRose

The entire concept if flawed from the start and conflicts with The Constitution in numerous ways starting with “Equal Justice” and “Equal Application”.

Nope. If legislation is passed that only increases the severity of attacking a black person because of their race but NOT the same for attacking a white person because of their race, THEN it is conflict with the principle of equality before the law. If the legislation increases the penalty for attacking ANY person because of their race, then it does not violate the principle because the word “any” implies that the particular race of the person attacked does not matter.

@WildRose

It criminalizes thought as well.

No. It makes the punishment for crimes that are committed against someone on account of their race more severe. So what it is punishing is action.

Furthermore, if you really believe this, then you should also oppose:

• The distinction made between first-degree and second-degree murder.
• The existence of any of those charges that have “…with intent to…” in their name.
• Treating terrorists attacks as more severe than non-terrorist attacks.

If it’s racist, or a “hate crime” to exclude blacks or minorites from college simply because of race. Is it also racist to admit them simply because of race, especially if a white student who scored higher on the admissions test is not admitted because of quotas?

I’m guessing in advance libs will somehow justify this…

I thought the topic of this conversation is hate crime legislation. Are you making a swipe at my explanation that destroys WildRose’s argument.

You’ve not understood his argument, let alone destroyed it.

His argument is garbage. What does your prior reply have to do with this other than involving race?

[Samson_Corwell]

@Optrader

@WildRose

Read the “study” they compared “similar counties” whatever that means for “reported hate crimes” after the Trump rallies.

No listing of the supposed crimes committed.

No report of actual convictions.

No comparison of “hate crimes” reporting prior to the rallies for the counties.

The whole thing is a steaming pile.

The idea of hate crimes laws is nothing more than the leftist March toward the establishment of thought police. For our own good of course…

We’ve had hate crime legislation for decades.

[Optrader]

@Samson_Corwell

@Optrader

@Samson_Corwell

@Optrader

@Samson_Corwell

@WildRose

The entire concept if flawed from the start and conflicts with The Constitution in numerous ways starting with “Equal Justice” and “Equal Application”.

Nope. If legislation is passed that only increases the severity of attacking a black person because of their race but NOT the same for attacking a white person because of their race, THEN it is conflict with the principle of equality before the law. If the legislation increases the penalty for attacking ANY person because of their race, then it does not violate the principle because the word “any” implies that the particular race of the person attacked does not matter.

@WildRose

It criminalizes thought as well.

No. It makes the punishment for crimes that are committed against someone on account of their race more severe. So what it is punishing is action.

Furthermore, if you really believe this, then you should also oppose:

• The distinction made between first-degree and second-degree murder.
• The existence of any of those charges that have “…with intent to…” in their name.
• Treating terrorists attacks as more severe than non-terrorist attacks.

If it’s racist, or a “hate crime” to exclude blacks or minorites from college simply because of race. Is it also racist to admit them simply because of race, especially if a white student who scored higher on the admissions test is not admitted because of quotas?

I’m guessing in advance libs will somehow justify this…

I thought the topic of this conversation is hate crime legislation. Are you making a swipe at my explanation that destroys WildRose’s argument.

You’ve not understood his argument, let alone destroyed it.

His argument is garbage. What does your prior reply have to do with this other than involving race?

Just demonstrating yet again the blatant hypocrisy of liberals. You can’t point to one single time to Trump calling for threats, intimidation or harassment of minorites, yet he is blamed for an alleged increase in hate crimes. Meanwhile, Maxine Waters is openly calling for conservatives to be harassed and driven out of public areas. This is happening to people all over. Conservatives are being beaten, intimidated ( even teenagers by adults), asked to leave restaurants etc. Universities are being burned and vandalized by liberal mobs to protest conservative speakers. Yet in typical hypocritical liberal MO, you guys ignore the real perpetrators of violence and transfer your hatred and violence over onto conservatives.
There is so little violence committed by Trump supporters, you guys have to make it up, and even when it’s proven to be a lie, you still defend and sympathize with the liar.

Affirmative action is institutionalized racism that has been around for decades. Nothing but the sound of crickets on this injustice either.

If you guys are so opposed to violence and racism then stop doing it. Problem solved… otherwise quit whining about it, we’re tired of it.