Another Day In The USA

[ZiprHead]

As one who is neither left nor right, I can say both are bad, and this "you're the worse one" back and forth ignores that both are bad.

The right has fewer but worse instances of violence. The left has more but less severe instances of violence. They're just not as good at it. Both sides have used pretty divisive rhetoric over the years. And we have people on the left (and in this very forum) openly preaching sub-lethal violence on a very regular basis.

Ah yes, the "both sides" claim again.

I described both similarities and differences. But since I spoke harshly about the faults of one tribe that means I made a bad argument.

The right has fewer but worse instances of violence. The left has more but less severe instances of violence. They're just not as good at it.

Citation?

Still waiting.

 

[James Brown]

President Trump is wrong. Video Games don't cause violent crime.



People in all these countries play violent video games.

In fact, when a popular violent video game comes out, violent crime tends to go down, not up. Killing zombies can ease potential bloodlust, and if you're home playing video games, you're not on the streets getting into trouble.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

President Trump is wrong. Video Games don't cause violent crime.

View attachment 23004

People in all these countries play violent video games.

In fact, when a popular violent video game comes out, violent crime tends to go down, not up. Killing zombies can ease potential bloodlust, and if you're home playing video games, you're not on the streets getting into trouble.

Crime's drop begins in '93 and ends around '00, and it has dropped some, increased a bit, but really has plateau'd. So the really violent games which came out post 2000 definitely seem to have had very little impact on crime, positive or negative. But some people just love to bring it up.

 

[ZiprHead]

President Trump is wrong. Video Games don't cause violent crime.

View attachment 23004

People in all these countries play violent video games.

In fact, when a popular violent video game comes out, violent crime tends to go down, not up. Killing zombies can ease potential bloodlust, and if you're home playing video games, you're not on the streets getting into trouble.

Crime's drop begins in '93 and ends around '00, and it has dropped some, increased a bit, but really has plateau'd. So the really violent games which came out post 2000 definitely seem to have had very little impact on crime, positive or negative. But some people just love to bring it up.

They are desperate to deflect away from Cheeto Jesus, the real well-spring of the problem here.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

As one who is neither left nor right, I can say both are bad, and this "you're the worse one" back and forth ignores that both are bad.

The right has fewer but worse instances of violence. The left has more but less severe instances of violence. They're just not as good at it. Both sides have used pretty divisive rhetoric over the years. And we have people on the left (and in this very forum) openly preaching sub-lethal violence on a very regular basis.

Ah yes, the "both sides" claim again.

I described both similarities and differences. But since I spoke harshly about the faults of one tribe that means I made a bad argument.

I don't think people accepted the validity of what you wrote without evidence or proof:
"The right has fewer but worse instances of violence. The left has more but less severe instances of violence."

Do you have proof of this?

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Here's some more "Fair and Balanced" stuff, this time from Fox News:

White House lectures Democrats for politicizing El Paso, Dayton shootings

Twitter feed, suspected of being Dayton, Ohio, shooter's, points to possible leftist leanings

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Here's some more "Fair and Balanced" stuff, this time from Fox News:

White House lectures Democrats for politicizing El Paso, Dayton shootings

Twitter feed, suspected of being Dayton, Ohio, shooter's, points to possible leftist leanings

Right now, the right-wing is scrambling to link stuff to the Dayton shooter. His attack seems apolitical, unlike the burned out Sanders supporter that shot up the Republican baseball practice.

The El Paso shooting was clearly a political act.

Oddly enough, Fox News used the word "lecture", which is typically a condescending term.

 

[TSwizzle]

The El Paso shooter was perfectly rational and sane. He drove 600 miles to kill Latin American people and didn't post about it until 20 minutes beforehand, knowing that any sooner might get the authorities on his tail. It was premeditated and goal-oriented in a way that doesn't point to anything except ideological commitment to white nationalism, and making noises about mental health (especially while continuing to support the for-profit system that denies it to so many) is a distraction from reality.

"He drove 600 miles to kill Latin American people", rational and sane ?! Not hardly. If you think that is rational and sane, you have a lot in common with the guy.

 

[SimpleDon]

No one is saying that Trump is applauding the shooter. It is hard to take anything that Trump says seriously. He frequently lies, so much so that it is hard to trust anything that he says.

It is especially hard to believe him when he condemns racism, as he did today, reading off of the teleprompter. Racism is his go-to default mode, especially when he is talking extemporaneously. Which I have to believe is more indicative of his true self.

The party that he leads has provided a political home for the racists in the US for more than forty years since they were dumped out of the Democratic party.

The chart included in the post points out the similarities between Trump's pronouncements and the shooter's rant. More than that it points out the same between the rant and samples from Fox News. There is nothing in the rant of a raging mad mass killer that wouldn't be surprising coming out of the mouths of your garden variety Republican or movement conservative.

This is the difference between the right and the left. The country has in the last forty years or so become increasingly conservative and both political parties have moved to the right. This means that the Republican party has become more extreme and the Democratic party has become more moderate. Anyone supporting the Republicans or calling themselves conservatives today can't escape the simple truth that they are aligning themselves with extremists.

Not all Republicans are far-right extremists. You should know this based on how many times you guys always say, "Not all Muslims are terrorists!"

At least you didn't argue that Trump is not a lying racist. Or that the shooter's rant isn't different from today's mainstream Republican and conservatives' rhetoric.

Not all Republicans are racists, not all Republicans are reactionaries or fascists or theocrats or gun nuts, but the party has accepted these into the party and the party is responsible for electing the lying racist and want-a-be-fascist as president as a result of accommodating these extremists.

The important question is why all of these people who were previously outside of the norm for the Republican party were accepted into the party?

There is a simple answer, because the Republican party needs all of the votes that it can get to stay in power in the face of the demographic changes occurring in the US in order to accomplish its one and only goal, to increase income inequality in the US, to provide the already rich with ever-increasing incomes.

The other question I have to ask is why you still support the Republican party? Is it because you are rich or because you are one of the extremists or is it because you have been fooled into believing the lies?

 

[SimpleDon]

Both sidism

We will have peace when the last Nazi shooter is strangled with the guts of the last Dindu gangsta thug.

My post, here, was about two ideas from other people. However, I don't see both sides being accommodated in either of them. These are facts which in my estimation favor only one side of this discussion.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

I described both similarities and differences. But since I spoke harshly about the faults of one tribe that means I made a bad argument.

The right has fewer but worse instances of violence. The left has more but less severe instances of violence. They're just not as good at it.

Citation?

Still waiting.

More instances - every single god damn antifa brawl. Even when their intended targets don't even show up.

Not as good at it - the attack on the ICE center and the shooter at the Republican baseball practice are some examples.

 

[ZiprHead]

The right has fewer but worse instances of violence. The left has more but less severe instances of violence. They're just not as good at it.

Citation?

Still waiting.

More instances - every single god damn antifa brawl. Even when their intended targets don't even show up.

Not as good at it - the attack on the ICE center and the shooter at the Republican baseball practice are some examples.

That's examples, not statistics. You said more and less. That requires stats to verify.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Citation?

Still waiting.

More instances - every single god damn antifa brawl. Even when their intended targets don't even show up.

Not as good at it - the attack on the ICE center and the shooter at the Republican baseball practice are some examples.

Yeah, we are quite aware that liberals and leftists are capable of performing criminal acts of violence. You were the one that both assigned magnitudes of harm and frequency to them relative to those on the right-wing. You were asked to back that​ up.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

The right has fewer but worse instances of violence. The left has more but less severe instances of violence. They're just not as good at it.

Citation?

Still waiting.

More instances - every single god damn antifa brawl. Even when their intended targets don't even show up.

Not as good at it - the attack on the ICE center and the shooter at the Republican baseball practice are some examples.

Claims and anecdotes are not proof. Also, getting angrier doesn't count as more evidence. Do you have actual proof of your claims?

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

Those aren't anecdotes, they are examples. They do count, they show that there is greater low level violence and ineptitude at attempts of high level violence.

 

[Rhea]

Perhaps, rather than “not as good at it,” it is actually, “don’t have murderous intent and are doing no more than disrupting on purpose”

But that would violate your, “just as bad,” fairy tale.

 

[James Brown]

My wife never ever goes to political rallies or stands in front of government building windows.

She does, however, visit Wal-Mart two to three times per week.

No question which "side's" violence I would prefer.

 

[blastula]

Those aren't anecdotes, they are examples. They do count, they show that there is greater low level violence and ineptitude at attempts of high level violence.

lol.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Those aren't anecdotes, they are examples. They do count, they show that there is greater low level violence and ineptitude at attempts of high level violence.

You said violence happens more with The Left but it's less in magnitude. So more frequency, less intensity. Restating it more specifically doesn't make it truer. Adding attempted insults such as the Left is inept doesn't make it truer either. Do you have proof or not?

 

[SimpleDon]

This is the difference between the right and the left. The country has in the last forty years or so become increasingly conservative and both political parties have moved to the right.

What have you been smoking? Democrats have been moving to the left pretty hard. Sanctuary cities? Decriminalize illegal border crossings? Medicare for all? Increase minimum wage to $15/h nationwide? Pay reparations to blacks? All of those are left wing policies.
Then come things like Hillary inviting mothers of young black men who have been shot by police to the DNC convention; never mind that most of these shootings were justified.
Bill Clinton sounded almost like Trump on the matter of illegals and Obama is being attacked for deporting illegals.
And while Clinton rightly condemned Sista Souljah's racism, I have a feeling that most of this crop of 2020 hopefuls would applaud her and accuse why whites who dare disagree

This means that the Republican party has become more extreme and the Democratic party has become more moderate. Anyone supporting the Republicans or calling themselves conservatives today can't escape the simple truth that they are aligning themselves with extremists.

There is extremism on both sides. The El Paso shooting is an inappropriate reaction to what's been going on at the border, with ~100,000 mass migrants coming each month and demanding to be let in, and the Democrats who would let them all in.

Has the Democratic Party swung violently to the left or is that the way that you view it from where you are sitting on the extreme right? I think that it is the latter.

Most of the examples that you gave of the Democrats moving to the left are talking points straight out of whichever right-wing disinformation site you prefer currently.

The Democrats don't support open borders or even want to encourage illegals because illegals are willing to work for lower wages which lower the overall wages for US workers. If you want to see who encourages illegals, pay attention to this simple rule - follow the money, who profits from the illegal immigrant workforce?

The number of illegals working in the US started to jump after the Reagan amnesty bill of 1986. Do you know why? Was it because so many illegals wanted to be in on the next amnesty bill? Or was it because the Republicans wrote a huge loophole into the 1986 bill making it much easier for companies to hire illegals without any fear of being prosecuted for it?

Medicare for all is being proposed to lower the costs and to expand the people who have access to health care. The private for-profit health insurance companies are extremely inefficient delivering health care to our people. Since we turned health care over to the for-profit companies starting in the 1980s health care costs have soared encouraged in no small part by the health insurance companies because it is the one sure way to increase their profits. Once again, follow the money, who profits from for-profit companies taking over the health care industry?

Sanctuary cities exist because it is a very bad idea to use the local police to enforce immigration misdemeanor laws because the local police need the cooperation of all of its citizens to solve serious local crimes, even the illegals. If the local police help ICE and the border police any chance of this cooperation will evaporate. The border police are now the largest police force in the US. It is hard to see why they have to have the local police to help them with their job.

The Democrats have always opposed illegal immigration as you admit with the two examples of Clinton and Obama. Just like traditional liberals before the Democratic Party moved so far to the right opposed the free trade treaties so beloved by the Republican Party that you are defending. The treaties that were meant once again to put downward pressure on the wages in the US. Clinton and Obama also supported those treaties, unfortunately. But these are the signs that the Democratic Party has moved to the right, not to the left as your disinformation has convinced you.

Other signs that the Democratic Party has become more conservative over the last forty years or so include Clinton embracing welfare reform, Obama willing to trade cuts to Social Security and Medicare for raising the debt limit, neither something that the Democrats of forty years ago would have ever considered.

Why? Because the Democratic Party was much further to the left then and dependent on the support of the labor unions then, the labor unions that the Republicans all but wiped out in private industry. And why did the Republicans wipe out the labor unions in private industry? Answer it yourself, remember, follow the money.

Do you detect a pattern here? These all are easily proven facts that are only countered by the lies that you have repeated here.

The 15 dollars an hour minimum wage is also reasonable. It is about what the minimum wage would have been if the minimum wage had been indexed to inflation.

Yes, Hillary was grandstanding by inviting people whose relatives had been shot by the police. I don't know if you have noticed but the Republican Party has elected a president whose only thing is grandstanding, he has nothing else.