Bill to make attacks on Trump supporters a Hate Crime

Post Reply New Topic

Not wanting to overcomplicate this issue but the bill pertains to classifying physical attacks on Trump supporters as a hate crime. Such attacks are unacceptable whether they be a salesman muttering the n-word under his breath or some dude walking around with a MAGA hat.

But the republican who is pushing this bill is also pushing his luck as its already a criminal offence regardless of whom the intended victim was. My guess is he assumed D.Trump would get behind his somewhat partisan bill.

Ideally not justified. But back in the real world it would be impossible to legislate against verbal abuse.

It’s already a hate crime to attack non trump supporters, this is just trying to level the playing field.
Laws shouldn’t be biased or applied to some but not others. Such laws are unjust laws.

Both are opinions and both cause psychological harm. Both are protected speech. Both are against wp rules.

I was actually Starting to think you were beginning to be less bias and a nicer person I see now I’m wrong. It was naive of me to stop ignoring you and think you’d turned over a new leaf, back the ignore list for you.

Actually I realised the road I was going down when I mentioned Floyd before I did a u-turn
Candace Owens has a point, what's done is done.

Yeah that's my point. Hate is hate, what's good for goose is good for the gander (sorry my NT brain is full of cliches)

I fear you won’t find many on wp who agree with you sadly

I offer no hate to most people here. Even still I try my hardest to a id by wp rules. If this was Facebook I’d be giving different not so nice swear fulled responses to people. The biased molding in here is a joke. Atleast on Facebook I can block people.
I try to be nice to people. I don’t make attacks on others despite them supporting a party I think is pure evil. I will debate kk on polices but I don’t call him evil.

I guess it boils down to intent to cause harm. People can be forgiven if they sincerely not aware what they say is harmful

Last edited by cyberdad on 19 Jun 2020, 1:39 am, edited 1 time in total.

Wow...It's amazing how hard it is to look at the actual "source" information (in this case the linked article in the original post)...


So again, please identify, with specificity, what part of this is "partisan"?

I suppose, were one side to be the instigators of abuse and violence towards the other, I can see how losing their protections which had enabled them to behave in such a way would cause them to claim it was partisan, as they would suddenly have to act in a civilised manner, rather than beat their oponents into "submission".

"ones' amendment will be modeled after a previous bill he authored which made similar recommendations for offenses that target people “because of the actual or perceived political beliefs or political associations of such victim or group of victims[.]”

Ok I stand corrected...

The problem can occur, however, when someone who claims to be against something, repeatedly pointing out examples of such behaviour, then goes ahead and commits the same "offence". At that point, it can be hard to believe in the "sincerity" that they were unaware of the harm in their words/actions (for example, a millionaire campaigning for public office on a platform of "socialism", or the "unfairness of a small % of the population having high wealth", while not giving any of their own money away...Or a person who focusses on racism making a racist statement)

Similarly, it can be hard to have a civilised discussion when presenting facts, which are then either ignored by the other side as "inconvenient" to their argument because they directly refute it, or referred to using words which contradict the source.

Personally, I treat people as I find them: Those who are willing to have a civilised discussion, talking about facts and are willing (and open to) changing their opinion should something occur/be presented which is in conflict with their understanding, I would consider "good" people (although rare), whereas those who repeatedly parrot "media claims" or "fasionable statements\opinions" without making an effort to check sources, and who are often unwilling to change their opinion (or consider another's as being valid, or worth trying to understand)...These are of little "value", yet surprisingly common.

Whilst I will contribute to discussion with both types, in the latter case, it is only with the intention of contributing to the knowledge/experience of the former type who may happen to view the thread.

No worries. It happens to everyone at some stage.

I was taught in school (many years ago) not to trust the headlines\reports of what an article contained, and to look towards the source material (or, where not available, to take 2 media sources with different\opposing biases as a way to try and determine the likely truth - I think it was the "Age" and the "Herald-Sun" Melbourne newspapers we used for several examples - I assume you'll understand the associated biases each may potentially have), along with my science background where raw data should be used wherever possible (as opposed to "adjusted" data or the results of another experinment where data and methodology aren't supplied) and have tried to keep up the habit.

I also remember watching both our regional news, Melbourne commercial news, and ABC news at night - It was amazing how the same "story" could have so many different presentations.

It would be nice, if rather dry reading, if the "news" removed all emotive\subjective "emphasis" from reports and presented the source data to enable readers to make up their own mind, rather than trying to turn the readers focus towards their preferred "understanding" of the facts, however accurate (or otherwise) this may be.

I've observed providing evidence against one's beliefs or even simple expression of disagreement cause serious psychological distress in some individuals. Should such behaviors be banned as well?

If a law existed that said it’s illegal only for black people to steal. And then someone said I want to pass this new law that says it’s illegal for all people to steal. Would you oppose it? Cause that’s what your doing here. Hate crimes already exist but only select groups are protected under it. This law is just trying to expand it to be a just and fair law and protect all groups and people.
Whether I support hate crime laws is regardless they already exist and if they going to exist then should apply to everyone and all groups.

So if it’s not ok to insult or use a slur against one group then it shouldn’t be ok to insult or use slurs against any groups. Laws are suppose to apply to everyone theyr suppose to be unbiased and fair. To justice it doesn’t matter if your black or a trump supoort both are to be seen the same and treated the same. And there’s millions of black trump supporters by the way.
I’d rather such laws be removed but they were put into place by democrats in office and they won’t let them be removed so they should be made unbiased and just.

I’ve found in my life on this earth once a law is passed its never removed.it might have been possible in the past but not now. This is why we fight unjust laws like gun control so hard. Once we lose our rights we never get them back