The Donald's Election Brings with it a Dramatic Increase in Hate Crimes

Well, I can't say I'm surprised. Trump's election now gives license to racists to bully and harass minorities.

http://www.cnn.com/2016/11/10/us/post-election-hate-crimes-and-fears-trnd/

What will Trump do, if anything, to stop it? Welcome to the new America. This cannot be good for anyone but the racists among us. It's a sad state indeed. But these racists elected Trump, and now they want their reward.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Should end now.
He was on tv and told them "stop it".
These terrible people may think they are somehow empowered but is it reasonable to simply blame Trump.
I mean these folk are out there forget Trump how do you address the terrible problem you have.
Are there laws against such nonsence.
Why has it not been stamped out years ago.
There is more wrong than just Trump blaming him avoids really facing the problem.

Alex

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

It is important to see these things in proportion. Yes, recently there was an increase of hate crimes and it is regrettable. On the other hand if number of hate crimes increses lets say by hefty 80%, in numbers it can mean for example an increase from 100 crimes daily to lets say 80 daily (just an example, I dont know the real numbers). But proportianally to millions of Trump supporter there is high probability, that percentage of Trump supporters commiting hate crime will be safely under 0,1% from whole number of Trump supporters. Therefore it is unappropriate to call all Trump supporters racists and it is obvious that Clinton regrets deeply her speech about "basket of deplorables / racists" as mistake now when she lost the election.

My guess is that most Trump supporters do not feel urge to commit hate crimes, they have enough satisfaction and fun watching youtube videos like "Butthurt Clinton voters crying out compilation". Quite funny to watch

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Way to go, do you want a cookie? The point is the Donald's rhetoric emboldened bigots, because he's a bigot.

(And that's bad)

When the head of a Trump PAC looks to Japanese internment camps, (a shameful aspect of our history, I shouldn't have to add), as a model for treating Muslims, then it's not just hyperbole to think this is starting to look like a fascist regime.

Trump Surrogate Cites Japanese Internment Camps As 'Precedent' for Proposed Muslim Registry

 

You do know that people are responsible for their own actions right?

 

Like inciting hate crimes?

 

Should he be held accountable for people who are incapable of thinking for their self and are incapable of controlling their ego? What about the people who voted for him? Should they also be held accountable? He did actually get elected into office.

 

Well yeah, of course. As a prominent public figure spouting hate for votes, you're damn right he's accountable.

 

Yes... in much the same way it is illegal to go into a crowded movie theater and scream Fire... because it incites panic that could get people trampled to death

 

When i'm passive I can be safe. You wouldn't need to hate. Do it for the happiness. Oh, and know.

 

Didn't Trump promise to hire legal counsel for any of his supporters who beat up their opponents?
They figure, now that their leader owns all the law-enforcement agencies and is about to own the Supreme court, they're allowed to do all the bad things that used to be illegal.
We knew this was going to happen, either way the election turned out: the mob was well primed for celebratory or vengeful violence.
There will be lots more. The interesting part is when the victims start fighting back in some organized resistance.

 

Well, yeah, they want the guv'm'nt to do it for 'em.

At the end of the day, with a candidate who lied the whole way and never had any intention of getting elected, a president-elect who has no idea what to do and thus sells out every reason people might have tried to claim they voted for him, the hatred is the only consistent, enduring principle.

As I said before the election: Either we're okay with Trump's dangerous beliefs and behavior or we're not, and if you voted for Donald Trump, we have our answer. There never really was any other reason to vote for him.

It seems significant that I have heard, several times since the election, people who were advocating for Donald Trump before the election suddenly change stories and say they didn't vote for him. The problem, of course, is that they weren't honest about their support on the front side, so we can't trust their attempts to exonerate themselves and wash their hands of their support.

Hatred is the only reason Trump supporters really have for their support.

The statistical reality that "most Trump supporters" do not commit hate crimes is generally irrelevant. That the blood isn't on a person's hands directly does not change the fact of their support for dangerous cruelty and genuine evil. And that's the problem. This isn't one of those times when someone said something controversial and everyone else went into ego defense in order to cast their vote because there was something more important to them in the pitch. We had clear warning. Hatred is what Trump voters voted for. They don't actually have any other excuse. More than Donald Trump himself, the real swindle comes from his voters and supporters, who are in turn incapable of being honest, thus resulting in meaningless talking points like, "My guess is that most Trump supporters do not feel urge to commit hate crimes".

Anyone making that manner of useless excuse also makes themselves known.

Or, you know, merely reiterates himself for the nth time.

 

So on the basis of some numbers you pulled out of your ass, you calculate a probability of something you have no idea about, and argue from it as if it were evidence?

The fact that the argument is silly - you are claiming that talk about the universality of racism among Trump supporters is invalid because they don't run amok in person badly enough to have their crimes recorded by the police they have hired - is just icing on that.

You haven't had that much fun since 2000, have you.

Do you recall how that worked out for you? The military triumphs, the dignity and respect all true Americans felt under his tenure, the pride that swelled your chest when the charming photos of Abu Ghraib came out, the satisfaction of seeing such a well-ordered and well-managed country and economy operating under sound American management. Nostalgic for the old days, are we? They're coming back. In spades.

 

While the title is true in terms of journalism and legal practice, it is not true as a matter of fact and logic. The simple fact is that "hate crime" is a concept that is applied uni-directionally and as a result, most hate crimes - committed by blacks against whites - are just prosecuted as "crimes". So looking through the opposite lens:

Just as Obama's election gave license to racists to commit crimes against whites (not just "bully and harass").

I suspect Trump will follow Obama's lead and encourage it.

 

Setting aside for the moment that you just fabricated all that shit ("I don't know the real numbers"), let's pretend your, erm, "estimates" are correct. So, fewer --probably--than 60 THOUSAND PEOPLE--"safely"--will be committing hate crimes in the name of Trump. Great.

 

I have written that the percentage is safely UNDER 0,1% which is very small number proportionally to around 61 million Trump voters and therefore it is OBVIOUSLY WRONG to call ALL Trump supporters racists. In reality the number is probably less than 0,001% but this is questionable. The estimate of 0,1% can be viewed as reliable and I would easily bet thousands of dollars on it if there were some independent and objective reviewer.

 

In this usage, "fewer" and "under" are synonymous, so I'm not entirely clear as to your point. Also, you were referring to the "percentage of Trump supporters commiting hate crime," and so I'm even less clear as to your point.

Wait a sec...

"The estimate of 0,1% can be viewed as reliable and I would easily bet thousands of dollars on it if there were some independent and objective reviewer."

Right. You're obviously insane, so nevermind.

 

Except is true as a matter of fact and logic. A hate crime is a hate crime. It isn't uni-directional as you have asserted.

The FBI definition of hate crime:

"A hate crime is a traditional offense like murder, arson, or vandalism with an added element of bias. For the purposes of collecting statistics, the FBI has defined a hate crime as a “criminal offense against a person or property motivated in whole or in part by an offender’s bias against a race, religion, disability, sexual orientation, ethnicity, gender, or gender identity.” Hate itself is not a crime—and the FBI is mindful of protecting freedom of speech and other civil liberties."

https://www.fbi.gov/investigate/civil-rights/hate-crimes

And where is your evidence for that assertion? I'm white, and I have seen absolutely no evidence to back up your assertion.

Again, what lead? What has Obama done to encourage racism?

 

I agree but it is also essentially true that:

Not all Trump voters are racists,
But all racists are Trump voters.

We all know why that is...

 

[sigh] You misread and in your paraphrase dropped the key word "applied". We are in agreement that the laws are written to be race blind. But they aren't applied in a race blind way. Or to put it more directly: when blacks or other minorities commit hate crimes they are less likely to be charged as hate crimes than when whites do.

To take it even further, our illustrious former head of the Justice Department did indeed argue the factually incorrect position that the laws were intended to be racially biased, as a way to justify his racially biased conduct as AG.

The conduct of his DOJ was a lot of it (some directed specifically by Obama, some just a passive result of Holder's appointment), but directly Obama fanned the flames of race tension in almost every opportunity, from the start of his Presidency. Starting with his response to college professor friend's incident to the police, to the Travon Martin "he could be my son" comment and trying desperately to bring federal charges in a number of cases where they wouldn't apply even if the people had been guilty of some crime. The rise in black-led racial violence during Obama's term was a predictable result of Obama's tone and actions.

https://www.google.com/amp/nypost.c...ng-them-racist/amp/?client=ms-android-verizon