Bill to make attacks on Trump supporters a Hate Crime

Post Reply New Topic

I was refering to a completely different aspect of the discussion:
If the laws against hate speech or whatever are aimed at saving some people from psychological harm, how about all the people who are seriously psychologically distressed by expression of disagreement or by providing arguments against their beliefs?

They aren’t. That was just him trying to justify attacking me and other trump voters.
If you insult a black person they get psychological hurt but trump voters like me don’t have a soul and the full can’t get hurt psychological. But I’d wager a therapist would say different.

The bill of rights protects all speech morally right or morally wrong.
Wp rules do not. But as of late attacks against non liberals is left and any tiny slight against liberals is banned. I’m probably psychologically scared from people on wp attacking me.
It’s like middle school all over again.
As someone put it just cause they were bullied in school doesn’t give them right to bully others here.

You are very easily triggered.
Did you work your middle school experiences in some therapy? I've had very bad memories from that age, too. Took me years to clean them up and leave them behind.

Yes, I also feel WP is politically slanted, even if I fit within this slant quite well.
However, the topic is not about WP rules but about US law.

It is getting better.

Possibly. I've just realised that some conservatives, especially the 50+ people, get their way on WP quite peacefully.

When did we fall into the Bizzaro World Black Hole?
Anyone with ethical integrity would agree that double standards are indefensible.

And:
"The standard you walk past, is the standard you accept."
More progressives should temper their immoderate brethren,
And that goes with the right side of politics, also, naturally.

I suggest more dialogue with the mods, in private email.

Darmok was a little too volatile, for my liking.
Perhaps he would have been less so with the overall more moderate prevailing attitudes now.

We lefties have taken a battering all over the world. A few have probably had enough and throwing fists.

That’s a good one!

I don’t think Trump is “pure evil.” And I don’t think all Democrats are right.

The Democratic Party is not the Communist Party. Nor are the Republicans the Fascist Party.

Trump is just a business guy who wants to be the CEO of the USA.

A narcissistic one, but I agree.

I think it pinpoints an issue.
A democratic country is run by different rules than a business corporation and Mr T does not seem to notice it.
The purpose of a business company is to make profits (hopefully by adressing some market need). The purpose of a country government is to create and keep acceptable environment for the citizens to go with their huge variety of activities.
Like, you don't fire people from a nation. "My way or highway" can be acceptable in a company but not in a modern country. Levels of acceptable risk-taking differ enormously between a business company and a nation, too. Risking your own money vs risking lives of other people makes quite a difference.

^you got it!

Sounds about right.
The problem being that in this case, the "progressives" who normally like change, can't accept someone who isn't one of "them" (a politician) muscling in on their territory.
Similarly, the "conservatives", who normally are against change, have decided that nothing was being done for their benefit\to help them under the "status quo" and decided to take a risk and try something else.

Add to that a beauracracy which is used to handing out money "at will" now having someone in charge who looks at "value for money" or "return on investment" ( for example: NATO, designed to protect Europe, yet the USA is providing a much higher % of funding than those who are supposedly benefiting from it) on behalf of the "shareholders" (being the countries taxpayers).

From the outside, it looks like a major change in how things work: whether it is good (overall) will probably only truly be able to be assessed in hindsight, due to the highly partisan environment at the current time...As with any leader of a country, some things they do are good, some not so much.

There; I fixed it for you!

You're welcome!

Similarly, though, a country could be considered to have shareholders (citizens) to whom the "CEO" (President) is responsible for, both in terms of "return", as well as ensuring the "business" (country) is a viable concern.

The problem I see is that a lot of what seems to be happening is so different from the past:
Where once additional people in the country was seen as a good thing, a spotlight has been put on how these people (legally entering or not) are depressing the wages/conditions of those who were already here, and so holding back a large section of the country.
Similarly, where once "cheap stuff" was seen as the "goal", the cost to the country with regards to the "lower classes" whose jobs were sacrificed for this "cheap stuff" has been highlighted (not to mention that the source of components for vital items like medicine are now at the whim of other countries, who may or may not be "friendly").

The only counter argument I have seen to this has been that any effort to support those legally able to enter/work in the country was "racist" because it was excluding those who lacked a lawful ability to work through the fact that this group were predominantly of one "race"....To those without jobs, this no doubt looks (looked) like an attempt to keep them as an "underclass", preventing them from improving their economic circumstances - More available workers means lower wages, whereas if a company needs to compete for staff, they have to offer better wages\conditions to both gain new staff and retain existing staff. The fact that more workers leads to more tax, so more available funds for services like education, health, welfare, etc. is just an added bonus.

I'd be surprised if the above reasons weren't a major cause of the 2016 election results...What disapoints me is that instead of trying to work with the President to find some "common ground", such as a way for those "DACA" people to work towards\gain citizenship, the Democrats went on the warpath, opposing almost everything, even where it would benefit those who they claim to represent...Maybe someone in the USA could advise if this level of opposition has occurred in the past?