Trump

[wufan]

The available hate crime data is from 2016. It also increased in 2015. If you were to tie this to Trump, the only explanation is that these groups grew towards the end of Obama's term (due to whatever) and they aligned themselves with Trump, whether he wanted them to or not. The increase is not caused by Trump, but his election could be the direct result of the increase.

[WuDrWu]

While I have zero respect, absolutely none whatsoever, for the man, I have ultimate respect for the position he holds. I am cautiously optimistic that we will get through the T administration without a full-on "fall of the empire" event. He will bumble and stumble his way through it and he won't be the catastrophe many think he will be. He will not be the great savior many think he will be either. It'll be a net wash and we will move on. We always do.

Well put.....I was pleased with the Supreme Court nominee, and I'm hopeful for a more conservative bench, cautiously so, but that's about it.

[WuDrWu]

https://youtu.be/fK1_hwPtNF4

Man I hate distributing scenes like those.

[WuDrWu]

The available hate crime data is from 2016. It also increased in 2015. If you were to tie this to Trump, the only explanation is that these groups grew towards the end of Obama's term (due to whatever) and they aligned themselves with Trump, whether he wanted them to or not. The increase is not caused by Trump, but his election could be the direct result of the increase.

Honest question....is there any data defining an actual hate crime? My point is, are things being described as hate crimes today, that were just crimes 5 years ago, or perhaps not even crimes 5-30 years ago? And are there any such things as hate crimes against Caucasian Americans?

My secondary point is that there is a general belief that a "hate crime" is a crime against minorities. In my life, with my own experiences, I'm only familiar with hateful crimes by minorities against non minorities. I've seen plenty of bigotry and stupidity, by all "races" (I incorrectly use that term for simplicity). But true criminal activity, no. Do I know it exists? Of course I do. I'm just commenting on personal experience.

Also, if the screaming adolescent at Yale wasn't charged with a hate crime, then I don't know what one is (half joking).

[RoyalShock]

Instead of starting a new topic, I'll put this here. It's somewhat Trump-related.

http://slatestarcodex.com/2017/05/01/neutral-vs-conservative-the-eternal-struggle/

I don't agree with every position in this article, but it certainly is thought-provoking.

It is an interesting read and the author at least is seeing and admitting his side isn't the neutral one they claim to be.

However, it felt to me like he had the same fundamental assumptions as the person who's work he was analyzing. Conservatives and their institutions are "witches", "horrible", "horrendous", and "wretched hives of offensive troglodytes". Perhaps he was attempting to echo the perception, or his understanding of the Vox author, but it was very difficult to tell and he seemed to use those terms a lot, with ease, as if he does so routinely in his own communications.

Until both sides try to understand the positions of the other and at least admit they may be reasonable (even if wrong), it's only going to get worse. I don't see the storm clearing anytime soon.

[shocka khan]

It is an interesting read and the author at least is seeing and admitting his side isn't the neutral one they claim to be.

However, it felt to me like he had the same fundamental assumptions as the person who's work he was analyzing. Conservatives and their institutions are "witches", "horrible", "horrendous", and "wretched hives of offensive troglodytes". Perhaps he was attempting to echo the perception, or his understanding of the Vox author, but it was very difficult to tell and he seemed to use those terms a lot, with ease, as if he does so routinely in his own communications.

Until both sides try to understand the positions of the other and at least admit they may be reasonable (even if wrong), it's only going to get worse. I don't see the storm clearing anytime soon.

I read it, too. I absolutely agree with your statement. I have a good friend who is my career mentor. He went to school at UE. His father set up the agricultural banking system in Saudi Arabia. He was my control subject. I felt I needed to understand why I had become so liberal and I was disillusioned with Obama. Through the election, I had a real awakening. My conclusion is exactly the same as yours.

Both parties (and political extremes) attempt to manipulate us through fear and blame. The 'other' guy is the boogeyman and we 'fear' what will happen if he gets in power and 'blame' him (or her) when things don't go right.

The only way we will EVER fix the problem is to have reasoned, rational discourse and understand why we think the way we think, don't reject other people's ideas and suggestions (because perhaps they are not in cahoots with this 'boogeyman) and listen more (and argue less). We should also have our bullshit detectors working at all times, because there is a ring of truth to Trump's charges of 'fake news', except I think the 'fake news' comes from both sides, and are funded by the wealthy who have found it is easier for them to get what they want by dividing us working Americans and buying our politicians.

It's sort of like the old Beetle Bailey line: "We have met the enemy and he is us."

[CBB_Fan]

Here's my counterpoint (or attempt at it):
1. The Trump University case was litigated and settled. What proof do you have he broke electoral financing laws and committed RICO violations? The other two I will give you.
2. France has a nationalist running for president. While she may not make it, she was one of the top two receiving votes. Britain is in the process of withdrawing from the EU in a move that was driven by nationalist views. As a result, to conclude the nationalist movement is confined entirely to the US is a false theme. The other two I will give you.
3. There has not been a 'massive' spike in hate crimes, as you have suggested. While I am absolutely sure the number of hate crimes has increased, massive indicates, at least to me, a doubling or tripling of those types of crimes. I don't believe that has happened.
4. The dissolution of the nuclear option has less to do with Trump and more to do with political funding and senate candidates (on both sides). By the way, we started down this road when the democrats, who ran the senate at the time, abolished the filibuster for federal judges. The republicans were taking the next logical step.
5. I don't know what you are getting at here.

1. The financing violations were an older story, just after the election. Both the Trump University suit and an upcoming case having to deal with Trump connections to Deustche Bank's money laundering were RICO cases.
2. I didn't solely blame Trump, but I think his lack of knowledge and crass actions are hurting us politically. When he says Korea was part of China and try to randomly bully them into paying for a missile defense program we agreed to pay for, he puts his foot in our mouth. And this is the way he treats all of our allies. It is Trump, not just nationalism, that is the problem.
3. The point was on Trump's response, not on the statistics. You can debate whether Trump retweeting white supremacist stuff has spurned hate groups or not, but that wasn't the point. Whether it be things like this or just not talking about far right terrorism when it happens, his response is the issue.
4. While I dislike Reid opening the can of worms, the Republicans ended the nuclear option after a day of filibuster for 1 position. The Democrats used it after the Republicans filibustered 77 seats, more in a single year than in the decades before. Schumer, the current minority leader opposed it at the time and now EVERY Republican is happy they pushed through Gorsuch.
5. This is a little more complicated. It refers to the Federalist papers, so it takes a bit of background work to really explain. Or more specifically, Václav Havel's Summer Meditations about the Federalist papers. To quote:

What can I do, as president, not only to remain faithful to [my]notion of politics, but also to bring it to at least partial fruition?" Havel asks. He answers,

"As in everything else, I must start with myself. That is: in all circumstances try to be decent, just, tolerant, and understanding,and at the same time try to resist corruption and deception. In other words, I must do my utmost to act in harmony with my conscience and my better self."

Combine this with another essay by Havel (which you can see here, in the Essential Civil Society Reader):

“I feel that the dormant goodwill in people needs to be stirred. People need to hear that it makes sense to behave decently or to help others, to place common interests above their own, to respect the elementary rules of human coexistence

I feel that at its core, Trumpism is a rejection of that good faith. A rejection of the need for decency. And I feel that is immensely toxic to a civil society, in a way that can't really be expressed in statistics.

[wufan]

@CBB_Fan:,

I really like your take on decency. I feel that it was a core belief held by Reagan conservatives, and a belief worth fighting for. Trump does not hold true to this, which is why I was against him in the primaries. While his existence as a GOP pres pushes us further away from our ideal, I do not hold that as a fault of Trump, nor do I believe that his lack of fulfilling that role is a sufficient reason to stand against him. The two Bush presidencies were great examples of individuals that that were good and decent, as were the unsuccessful GOP candidates that followed. However, they were unsuccessful in that they were ridiculed by the media due to the fact that they were conservative. They were demonized as dim witted corporate puppets. Trump has/had the ability to brush off the naysayers, partially due to his lack of "decency" and he became a symbol to rally behind. If Trump adequately fulfills many of the other important conservative narratives, then he is by default a better candidate for the GOP than HRC. Please also look to policies/promises to see if he is truly horrible, or merely not up to standard.

[wufan]

Honest question....is there any data defining an actual hate crime? My point is, are things being described as hate crimes today, that were just crimes 5 years ago, or perhaps not even crimes 5-30 years ago? And are there any such things as hate crimes against Caucasian Americans?

My secondary point is that there is a general belief that a "hate crime" is a crime against minorities. In my life, with my own experiences, I'm only familiar with hateful crimes by minorities against non minorities. I've seen plenty of bigotry and stupidity, by all "races" (I incorrectly use that term for simplicity). But true criminal activity, no. Do I know it exists? Of course I do. I'm just commenting on personal experience.

Also, if the screaming adolescent at Yale wasn't charged with a hate crime, then I don't know what one is (half joking).

I believe that hate crimes are defined by those that create the statistics, as they should be. The data set utilized should be more readily apparent, as should the true comparability to previous years.

[wufan]

@CBB_Fan:,

How should Trump respond to far right extremists?

[CBB_Fan]

@CBB_Fan,

How should Trump respond to far right extremists?

1. Recognize them as extremists, instead of focusing solely on Islamic extremism
2. When an attack or hate crime makes the news, don't immediately label it a false flag operation
3. When an attack or hate crime makes the news, make a short non-political statement condemning the attack and supporting the victims.

[shocka khan]

I believe that hate crimes are defined by those that create the statistics, as they should be. The data set utilized should be more readily apparent, as should the true comparability to previous years.

I would like to see if there is a standardized category for hate crimes and if so, what is the definition.

I think there are some hate crimes that leave a lot to interpretation. Some are as obvious as the nose on your face, but there may be others that reasonable people may disagree on.

So if we agree it appears as if the definitions are subjective, not objective, and if the statistics rely on what a perp plead to (or was charged with) that degree of subjectivity will also be huge, as it is further subjectively defined by prosecutorial discretion.

I'm not saying the statistics forming the base for the tracking of these crimes is skewed (because you have to have a methodology which is repeatable to start from), I'm just making the point that the definition of these crimes is, at times, very imprecise, therefore, there is a possibility the underlying data may not be accurate.

To accurately analyze these statistics, you have to follow a consistent definition and guidelines. However, I do think there may be questions regarding data quality, based on the subjectivity of the process. If the data is hosed, the analysis may be faulty as well.

[CBB_Fan]

The following is the FBI's definition and explanation on tracking history:

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.

Basically, a hate crime is a normal crime opened up to federal investigation and prosecution. It has to already be a crime to be a potential hate crime (hate speech is explicitly protected by the Constitution), and the federal government has to choose to aid in investigations/prosecutions.

Traditionally, hate crimes investigations were limited to crimes preventing a protected activity (attending school, patronizing a public place/facility, applying for employment, acting as a juror in a state court or voting).

Hate crime prosecutions have been expanded twice. In 1996, the Church Arson Prevention Act made damage to religious property a hate crime. In 2009, the Matthew Shepard and James Byrd, Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act expanded the protected classes (originally only race, religion, color, and national origin were protected) and dropped the federally protected activity requirement.

Hate crimes do not have to be against minorities. ~16% of race-related hate crimes were anti-white, while anti-Christian hate crimes were ~7% of religious hate crimes.

Anyway, that's a brief explanation.

[wufan]

The following is the FBI's definition and explanation on tracking history:



Basically, a hate crime is a normal crime opened up to federal investigation and prosecution. It has to already be a crime to be a potential hate crime (hate speech is explicitly protected by the Constitution), and the federal government has to choose to aid in investigations/prosecutions.

Traditionally, hate crimes investigations were limited to crimes preventing a protected activity (attending school, patronizing a public place/facility, applying for employment, acting as a juror in a state court or voting).

Hate crime prosecutions have been expanded twice. In 1996, the Church Arson Prevention Act made damage to religious property a hate crime. In 2009, the Matthew Shepard and James Byrd, Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act expanded the protected classes (originally only race, religion, color, and national origin were protected) and dropped the federally protected activity requirement.

Hate crimes do not have to be against minorities. ~16% of race-related hate crimes were anti-white, while anti-Christian hate crimes were ~7% of religious hate crimes.

Anyway, that's a brief explanation.

Other organizations; homeland security, have other definitions.

[CBB_Fan]

Other organizations; homeland security, have other definitions.

The FBI is the organization that investigates and prosecutes hate crimes. Others, like the DHS, have much smaller roles. The DHS for instance has the Countering Violent Extremism task force, which has a grant to study hate crimes, but they don't get involved with the cases.

In 1990 George H.W Bush started hate crime reporting by signing the Hate Crime Statistics Act of 1990. Because of the law, the FBI and DoJ jointly publish a report on hate crime statistics. The other pertinent law is the Campus Hate Crimes Right to Know Act of 1997 which requires campus security to collect and report hate crime data.

Almost all hate crime reporting numbers are going to come from the joint FBI/DoJ report, so their definition is the standard to go by.