Trump

[shocka khan]

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.

And the person ultimately in charge of filing and prosecuting cases is the Attorney General. The FBI, because of the unique nature of their work, reports up through both the AG and the U.S. Intelligence Community.

My point here is the AG's office has been pretty darn politicized for the last 16 years, dating back to the infamous Alberto Gonzalez torture memo.

During Obama, we had Eric Holder, who couldn't or wouldn't prosecute the business owners who crashed our economy, as the point of emphasis during his tenure was voting rights abuses. After him, we had Loretta Lynch, who was similarly focused on those types of issues. It does not take much of a stretch to see both of these people were invested heavily in investigating and prosecuting hate crimes.

So who's betting this will continue to be a point of emphasis under Trump DOJ prosecutors AND AG Jeff Session's DOJ?

I don't think I'd take that bet, unless I was on the side where I was betting the numbers would drop.

Some of the drop may be because Sessions could be construed to be a 'racist', but some of it will also be because the AG will actually be focused on prosecuting criminals. Personally, I believe Sessions might be a racist, but I also think his predecessors were obsessed with prosecuting cases impacting a large segment of Obama's constituency directly.

So under Obama (and up to this year) we had, arguably, an environment where the numbers could be exaggerated and now we have an environment where they could potentially be underreported.

Interesting situation we have here. Just proves my point.

[CBB_Fan]

I will note that my earlier article on rebranding the CVE is out of date as of a few hours ago. That article suggested that Donald Trump was considering rebranding the task force and focusing solely on Islamic terrorism. Trump made another step towards that today by freezing funding for groups fighting right-wing terror and white supremacism.

And, just as a reminder, far right terrorists do exist. They even exist here in Kansas. Here are a few more examples. They aren't as covered as Islamic groups (for a variety of reasons), but they are just as dangerous to those living in the US as ISIS. This freeze of funds is simply irresponsible, almost as much for the message it sends as the actual dollar amount (which is relatively small).

In "unrelated" news: "US anti-Semitism envoy’s office to remain empty"

“There will be no one left to work on anti-Semitism within the anti-Semitism office,” the official said. “The work of the office will essentially end until they decide to rehire someone, and they don’t even have to do that.”Rep. Ted Deutch, D-Fla., said reports of the Trump administration not filling the envoy position “raise serious concerns about its commitment to addressing surging anti-Semitism.”
“Not only has the president failed to fill the Special Envoy position; his State Department is reportedly preparing to all but shut down its operations,” Deutch said in a statement to JTA. “In the time of rising anti-Semitism, the administration should be seeking more ways to combat it rather than eliminating the one position dedicated to fighting it.”

If nothing else, this is unnecessary bad PR that could be avoided with a small amount of thought and effort.

[Kung Wu]

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.

You mean like this: http://www.kansascity.com/news/polit...135605738.html , where Trump specifically condemns a hate crime committed by a white loser that left Srinivas Kuchibhotla -- originally from India -- dead?

Oh and that hate crime happened in ... Kansas.

[shocka khan]

And, just as a reminder, far right terrorists do exist. They even exist here in Kansas. Here are a few more examples. They aren't as covered as Islamic groups (for a variety of reasons), but they are just as dangerous to those living in the US as ISIS. This freeze of funds is simply irresponsible, almost as much for the message it sends as the actual dollar amount (which is relatively small).

In "unrelated" news: "US anti-Semitism envoy’s office to remain empty"

Example of white supremacist terrorism close to Kansas: Timothy McVey
Link to an article on the topic (specifically about Kansas): https://www.irehr.org/2013/02/01/hid...ate-of-kansas/

[CBB_Fan]

You mean like this: http://www.kansascity.com/news/polit...135605738.html , where Trump specifically condemns a hate crime committed by a white loser that left Srinivas Kuchibhotla -- originally from India -- dead?

Oh and that hate crime happened in ... Kansas.

Yes, like that. If he did that every time, he'd be okay on this. But he said nothing when a white supremacist shot up a mosque in Canada (and other times blamed Muslims for the attack when the attacker was a non-Muslim white guy). And when Trump's administration created a list of 78 "under-reported" terrorist attacks, they failed to mention even a single white terrorist attack.

Even in the last week, we have an attack by a machete-wielding idiot and nothing from Trump on the matter.

[MoValley John]

Yes, like that. If he did that every time, he'd be okay on this. But he said nothing when a white supremacist shot up a mosque in Canada (and other times blamed Muslims for the attack when the attacker was a non-Muslim white guy). And when Trump's administration created a list of 78 "under-reported" terrorist attacks, they failed to mention even a single white terrorist attack.

Even in the last week, we have an attack by a machete-wielding idiot and nothing from Trump on the matter.

I don't know. That story just bleeds of a young, mixed up kid that got off his meds. I could be wrong. More importantly, I don't think this president, or any president needs to make statements for every, or even most hate crimes. I don't know where you draw the line, but there were onyy two victims and no deaths, a pretty low threshold to expect a comment in my opinion.

Furthermore, I don't think Obama needed to be judged on the funerals he did or didn't attend. I hope we don't judge others on that either. This goes back to my original post on Trump supposedly thinking Jackson was alive during the Civil War. In our quest to demonize the opposition, we often make up issues when there are none, we take statements out of context, we create meaning out of whether or not a statement was made, meaning regarding the attendance or absence at a funeral, and guess the context of eye contact or a handshake. Most of the time, there was no meaning intended. Meanwhile, we miss out on events and comments that do have real meaning. The handwringing on Jackson being dead amazed me, as much as the lack of attention to the fact that Jackson was an unabashed,.proud, slave owner.

[jdshock]

I doubt there are a million, Mr. Fake Liberal News (j/k) but I'd be curious what your top 5 are so far.

It seems many of the conservative things he's tried to champion have failed, so far at least. That would seem to make you happy, no?

And he's certainly gotten behind more than a handful of liberal ideas.

Like I said, just curious what your top 5 "bad job" things are so far.

You pointed out that a lot of the conservative things he's tried to champion have failed, which should make me happy. They didn't fail because of him, though. For example, I think the travel ban was a really, really bad decision he made. He promoted something that cost him a lot of political capital, and he was ultimately shut down by the courts anyway.

I originally wanted to respond with a list of 5 things I would think everyone can agree he did a bad job with, but I don't think that's really what you've asked for. I'll just provide my totally biased list.

1. Environmental issues - I think he's been really, really bad on this front. He wants to get rid of protections against deep water oil drilling. He's said some stuff about national lands that I completely disagree with. I've hated everything he's done with the EPA. The EPA is now basically just a coal propaganda organization. This is easily the number one issue for me, but it's clearly the furthest thing from the type of item we'd both agree on. This is clearly more than one decision, but I'm grouping them together.

2. Cabinet appointments in general - Cabinet appointments are one of the biggest reasons a presidential election still matters, right? It's this huge list of people with huge amounts of power and we didn't elect any of them. I saw a lot less about Nikki Haley as UN ambassador than I saw about people like DeVos, but Haley was a terrible, terrible pick. Obviously, I hated the DeVos pick, too. He put Carson in on a topic Carson knows nothing about. Similar to number 1, Scott Pruitt was obviously a blow to liberals. Again, this is definitely more than one decision, but I've grouped it.

3. Travel ban - I think the travel ban was all around bad. It made us look bad as a country. It made him look weak because the courts showed him up. On top of the fact that it was actually mostly unnecessary legislation.

After that, it's all kind of stuff that hasn't really been official in any way. For example, he's said some stuff about Dodd-Frank that worries me. Then there's the stuff that makes me really unhappy, but who knows how I'd react if I agreed with the guy politically. I generally haven't liked how involved his children have been. I think he could've done a better job of divesting from his business, etc.

All in all, a few policy things, a lot of potential things, and then some "I disagree with the guy already" things.

[wufan]

All reasonably debatable topics. I'm in favor of less regulation and, while the travel ban was executed horribly and the motives are at least questionable, I'm not opposed to the general principle of the idea.

[WuDrWu]

Yes, like that. If he did that every time, he'd be okay on this. But he said nothing when a white supremacist shot up a mosque in Canada (and other times blamed Muslims for the attack when the attacker was a non-Muslim white guy). And when Trump's administration created a list of 78 "under-reported" terrorist attacks, they failed to mention even a single white terrorist attack.

Even in the last week, we have an attack by a machete-wielding idiot and nothing from Trump on the matter.

Am I misreading this? You want Trump to denounce "hate crimes" in Canada?

[CBB_Fan]

Am I misreading this? You want Trump to denounce "hate crimes" in Canada?

When the attacker was a well-documented supporter of the far-right, including Trump? Absolutely. It makes it even more important to show a clear anti-extremist position from the government. And it is downright disgraceful to put scare quotes around hate crimes, which makes it seem like we are talking about something fake or insignificant instead of a terrorist attack that left 6 dead and 19 wounded.

[wufan]

When the attacker was a well-documented supporter of the far-right, including Trump? Absolutely. It makes it even more important to show a clear anti-extremist position from the government. And it is downright disgraceful to put scare quotes around hate crimes, which makes it seem like we are talking about something fake or insignificant instead of a terrorist attack that left 6 dead and 19 wounded.

You are suggesting that Trump condones hate crimes in other countries.

[shocka khan]

You pointed out that a lot of the conservative things he's tried to champion have failed, which should make me happy. They didn't fail because of him, though. For example, I think the travel ban was a really, really bad decision he made. He promoted something that cost him a lot of political capital, and he was ultimately shut down by the courts anyway.

I originally wanted to respond with a list of 5 things I would think everyone can agree he did a bad job with, but I don't think that's really what you've asked for. I'll just provide my totally biased list.

1. Environmental issues - I think he's been really, really bad on this front. He wants to get rid of protections against deep water oil drilling. He's said some stuff about national lands that I completely disagree with. I've hated everything he's done with the EPA. The EPA is now basically just a coal propaganda organization. This is easily the number one issue for me, but it's clearly the furthest thing from the type of item we'd both agree on. This is clearly more than one decision, but I'm grouping them together.

2. Cabinet appointments in general - Cabinet appointments are one of the biggest reasons a presidential election still matters, right? It's this huge list of people with huge amounts of power and we didn't elect any of them. I saw a lot less about Nikki Haley as UN ambassador than I saw about people like DeVos, but Haley was a terrible, terrible pick. Obviously, I hated the DeVos pick, too. He put Carson in on a topic Carson knows nothing about. Similar to number 1, Scott Pruitt was obviously a blow to liberals. Again, this is definitely more than one decision, but I've grouped it.

3. Travel ban - I think the travel ban was all around bad. It made us look bad as a country. It made him look weak because the courts showed him up. On top of the fact that it was actually mostly unnecessary legislation.

After that, it's all kind of stuff that hasn't really been official in any way. For example, he's said some stuff about Dodd-Frank that worries me. Then there's the stuff that makes me really unhappy, but who knows how I'd react if I agreed with the guy politically. I generally haven't liked how involved his children have been. I think he could've done a better job of divesting from his business, etc.

All in all, a few policy things, a lot of potential things, and then some "I disagree with the guy already" things.

I'm worried about the financial sector reforms which were adopted shortly after our banking system almost crashed and burned. I don't think banks should be underwriting securities, selling securities and making recommendations on securities, as this creates rather obvious conflicts of interest.

Banking may be a boring profession, but done right, almost guarantees a profit. Those profits may be boring (at least the return on them might be), but we have suffered two crashes (one in 1929 and one in 2007) when we started 'liberalizing' banking laws (or when banks started getting into businesses that caused obvious conflicts). If we didn't learn after getting thumped upside the head twice, will we ever learn?

[wufan]

On banking reform; much of the housing bubble was caused by the federal requirement to underwrite loans for people with bad credit or for people that just wanted more house than they could afford. The goal of every American a home owner, was bad legislation. There were many other problems in lending, but it was created with the banking business in cahoots with the Feds. Regulation needs to be done with the same responsibility as business. Dodd-Frank took it too far.

[jdshock]

On banking reform; much of the housing bubble was caused by the federal requirement to underwrite loans for people with bad credit or for people that just wanted more house than they could afford. The goal of every American a home owner, was bad legislation.

This is false, and we've talked about it before. There's just no evidence that the CRA caused the bubble. Check out this article: https://thinkprogress.org/no-lending...s-8ba95ce23015

The argument that CRA and the affordable housing goals caused the crisis have been debunked time and time (and time and time and time and time and time) again. The CRA has been in place since 1977, while subprime lending only skyrocketed in the 2000s. Even if one concentrates on the changes in enforcement of the act in 1995 (as Gramm does), the Act does nothing to explain the massive uptick in subprime lending concentrated from 2004 to 2006. What’s more, most subprime lenders weren’t banks and therefore weren’t even subject to CRA. That’s why only 6 percent of the high-cost mortgages at the time (a proxy for subprime) could even potentially qualify for CRA credit.

If "ThinkProgress" isn't the kind of place you are willing to trust for this type of conclusion, check out its cited sources:

https://www.federalreserve.gov/pubs/feds/2011/201136/index.html

http://ccc.unc.edu/contentitems/debunking-the-cra-myth-again/

http://www.frbsf.org/community-development/files/cra_lending_during_subprime_meltdown11.pdf

[Play Angry]

Congressional interference with underwriting in the 90s played a role in the '08 meltdown, but it was one of many contributing factors. Banks and institutional investors absolutely threw caution to the wind and gorged themselves in the blow-off stage when the most damage was done. It's easy to gamble with money when you believe you enjoy limitless reimbursability. The moral hazard aspect among issuers, ratings agencies and bond insurers was also a ticking time bomb.

Dodd Frank predictably aimed the government's bullets at most of the wrong heads in the ensuing "let's fix this" stage.