DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Palus Politicus What Republicans have become part 3

I know that in the south, exactly where these men are from, it's very true.

Maybe they're taking Putin's word over what everyone else is telling them. I mean after all, that's what Trump did.

I'm just curious, since this has become the battle-cry...

Does this mean?

Sit down.
Shut up.
Don't ask questions.

I think it means, let come together on this. Nothing more, nothing less. But dems don't expect much more than the childish BS the right has been putting out ever since they tried to overthrow the government.

yeah, again my point was more so that people are overlooking actual history.

The largest mass lynching was a bunch of Italian immigrants on March 14, 1891. Throughout our history, many Italians were hung. Ironically, they are also trying to take Columbus day from Italian Americans. Which, they were basically given Columbus day to quell the people from the above-mentioned lynching of these Italians.

As I said, you wish to go back to a time when lynchings were common place across America. It was national. I'm speaking of our most recent history and what is most associated with lynchings when they were only for one race.

But let me ask you, if Italians were being targeted by nationality, is that not too a hate crime?

If you actually want to get down to facts, lynchings were brought up in congress to make them illegal on a federal level with the Costigan-Wagner Bill of 1934. It failed mostly by strong opposition from southern senators. Do you think the reason they blocked lynchings from becoming a crime in 1934 was to target Italians?

Columbus never stepped foot in North America so I get it.

Doesn't that still support it being a hate-crime, though?

Also, for clarity are we talking about legal execution vs non-legal? I don't think Italians were always targeted because of their race. They were definitely hung pretty frequently - Dozens of them were hung in the early 1900's.

I think those people blocked hanging because they didn't want to change and other various words that I can't use on this forum.

Hanging was a common practice until the 1930's - the last person hung in we was Billy Bailey in 1996. Most of the hanging for execution purposes was done up until the mid 30's.

Yet you refuse to answer one simple question. You've been asked by both myself and oober.

If Italians were also targeted for hanging due to their race, is not that too a hate crime?

And if the reason to keep lynchings legal was mostly opposed by southern senators in 1934, are you trying to assert that had anything to do with Italians?

Isn't murder murder? Does it need an additional definition. In no way could lynching be construed as anything except premeditated murder.

Punishments are harsher for hate crimes. How do you lynch somebody without hate in your heart/mind?

First degree murder is Death or life in prison with no possibility of parole, how much harsher do you need it?

Are you tying to assert that the reason hanging in 1934 had to do with blacks?

I mean, you are asking a slanted question ... if someone is targeting someone based upon race, color, religion, national origin, sexual orientation, gender, gender identity, or disability... is it a hate crime? The answer is yes. But that is not what I have been saying I don't agree with.



To make an action such as lynching a hate crime because of the act... that part I don't agree with.

My original point was that "whites" being Italians were hung into the 1930's along with blacks. For some strange reason, people omit that from their brains just as you said... " It's common knowledge that lynchings were continued as murder and condemnation of blacks long after whites were no longer being lynched ". This is simply not true and I gave you examples.

By making lynching a hate crime, it also starts to blur the lines of a specific action becoming a hate crime. (obviously extremely) but... People could start arguing that giving someone a ticket for parking in front of a Synagogue is a hate crime.

Is lynching wrong? as I said.. yes for a multitude of reasons.

was lynching something that happened to only black people? no, no it wasn't. Should it be a hate crime? No, because that is implying that it only happened to one race, color, religion, national origin, sexual orientation, gender, gender identity, or disability.

That... is an injustice to all of these Italian Americans (and others) who were hung and a main reason Italians were given Columbus day.

Are hate crimes limited to crimes against black people?

try reading what I wrote before asking passive-aggressive questions

I guess you forgot all about the 40's, 50 and 60's. And totally ignored that those who opposed making lynchings a crime were senators from the south. But you do you.

Wow. I didn't know hate crimes was such a sticking point for right-wingers. IMO, it's absolutely a hate crime, no ifs, ands, or buts about it. So, you'll have to forgive my dismay with this conversation.

I sincerely didn't mean to sound passive-aggressive, but I don't blame you for taking it as such. I'm trying to get you to explain/clarify more, because your response/argument of pointing out crimes against a different ethnicity seems odd. I don't get it.

add: I re-read the whole convo, and I see what you're saying. Your point is basically that lynching doesn't automatically mean a hate crime has occurred. You're saying that someone could do a lynching for any number of reasons.

you are moving the goalposts around like crazy. 1960 was over 60 years ago. The people who could do terrible things like that are dead or almost dead and I hope those people rot in hell for eternity.


My point was that lynching is not a hate crime specifically against black people. I gave examples of how that is not accurate and unfair to other races who were frequently hung.


My other point was that by saying that lynching is a hate crime. That can start to open up the argument that murder with a gun is also a hate crime because more black people are shot and killed than any other race. That is also why I said by making lynching a hate crime, it also starts to blur the lines of a specific action becoming a hate crime.

You’re getting caught up in the words. Lynching and hanging aren’t really interchangeable.

One is the most common form of mob violence, the other is done often by suicide or the state/authority.

And that’s why this bill exist. We have to remember that laws get passed based on intention, or I think they call it “the spirit of the law” or something like that?

So if someone/group of people are murdered by a mob and hanged based on political or social intent, that’s a lynching, which is a hate crime.

But offing yourself or being killed by an official authority is considered a hanging.

Nobody said it was "just against black people". What was said is the reason those who have blocked anything that would outlaw or label it a hate crime ever since 1934 were politicians from the south where the lynching of black people were carried out for decades after it was no longer common place anywhere else or common place among any other race. If you can't connect the dots between right wind southern politicians and lynchings, you aren't even trying.

So because I don't agree with you I am a Right Winger?

I disagree with it, because we already have laws on the books for the crime of First Degree Murder, adding hate crime does injustice to true hate crimes, which had originally been designated towards crimes committed because the victim was "different", be it race, religion, gender preference etc.

The Hate Crime label should remain with it's intent, a crime against another based on "difference", not based on a the crime itself which is just that, a crime. My opinion has nothing to do with lynching at all, I wouldn't want hate crime attached to shooting, stabbing, rape, etc either.

If you want to get technical, isn't all crime against another a hate crime? Do you commit crimes against people you like?

EDIT: "You" is used in the general sense, not the personal sense.

What you propose is a further burying of the motivation that cause these crimes to happen. That race and sexual orientation are huge factors in these crimes. It's no different than hiding the actual history of this nation in the classrooms of our schools. It's an attempt to wipe out that people are targets of such crimes. We keep statistics of women who are battered, beaten and killed from domestic violence. Special laws are in place that deal with domestic violence that go far beyond laws of assault.

But for some reason people want this to be treated differently. They do not wish for it to be recorded that both racial and sexual preference are targets of hate. That for these reasons and these reasons alone people are being killed. It's a convenient way to pretend it does not exist. No wonder it's become so hard to paint an accurate portrait of our history when people still advocate a cover up of reality continue to exist.

j/c

3 men plead guilty in white supremacist terror plot to disrupt power grid, trigger race war

The three plotted to shoot at power substations and planned to kill themselves with fentanyl "suicide necklaces" if they were thwarted by authorities, the Justice Department says.

Three men who plotted to attack electricity substations in a white supremacist bid to sow national unrest pleaded guilty to providing material support to terrorism, the Justice Department announced Wednesday.

Federal prosecutors in Ohio said the three planned to disrupt the electricity grid in order to sow civil unrest and economic uncertainty in furtherance of their white supremacist cohort. They hoped to cause unrest and trigger a race war, but the plot never really got past the planning stage, prosecutors said.

Christopher Brenner Cook, 20, of Columbus, Ohio; Jonathan Allen Frost, 24, of West Lafayette, Indiana, and of Katy, Texas; and Jackson Matthew Sawall, 22, of Oshkosh, Wisconsin, pleaded guilty after initially claiming innocence.

The three had planned to kill themselves with "suicide necklaces" containing fentanyl, the powerful synthetic opioid, if law enforcement came upon them before they were successful, prosecutors said. When police initiated a traffic stop on Sawall and Cook in Ohio before they could carry out key aspects of their plan, Sawall took his portion of fentanyl but survived.

Justice Department officials said the three represented a serious threat to the nation.

“These defendants conspired to use violence to sow hate, create chaos, and endanger the safety of the American people,” U.S. Attorney Kenneth L. Parker for the Southern District of Ohio said in a statement. “As this case shows, federal and state law enforcement agencies are dedicated to working together to protect this country against all enemies, foreign and domestic.”

Brian Levin, director of the Center for the Study of Hate and Extremism at California State University, San Bernardino, said targeting power plants and water supplies is a common aspiration among white supremacists.

“Within both the folklore and history of the racist far right’s plotting over decades has been the glorification of leaderless resistance style targeted plots and attacks, ranging from assassination, infrastructure and intimidation for the purpose of advancing an insurgency, in part through destabilization," he said by email.

Frost and Cook met in an online chat group in fall 2019, and Sawall joined the trio by the end of the year, prosecutors said. Frost had the idea of attacking the power grid, and the three set out to recruit possible participants, they said.

Cook maintained the group's ideology by giving his coconspirators a reading list that reenforced white supremacy and "Neo-Nazism," the Justice Department said in a statement.

The trio decided to disable electricity substations in major regions of the nation essentially by shooting at them, prosecutors said. Frost and Cook trained with an Armalite semiautomatic rifle to prepare, they said.

"They had conversations about how the possibility of the power being out for many months could cause war, even a race war, and induce the next Great Depression," according to the Justice Department statement.

The trio initially focused on Columbus, Ohio, where Sawall and Cook painted a swastika with the words "Join the Front" under a bridge in early 2020, the Justice Department said.

Cook and Frost then headed to Texas to continue to plan their power disruption. There, Cook tried to recruit teenagers to help the three, prosecutors said.

It's not clear how the plot unraveled and the case remained under seal. The case was investigated by the FBI’s Joint Terrorism Task Force in Columbus, Milwaukee, Indianapolis and Houston.

The defendants were charged Feb. 7. The allegation of providing material support to terrorism carries with it a maximum sentence of 15 years.

Sentencing was not yet scheduled. Defendants were prosecuted in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio.

Samuel Shamansky, attorney for Frost, described the defendants as misguided young men who went down an internet rabbit hole.

"My client is extremely remorseful for his conduct and understands the potential harm he and his coconspirators could have caused," the lawyer said.

Frost is willing to "remedy" any harm he caused and was "committed to rehabilitation," he said. The defendant has disavowed his white supremacist views, Shamansky said, and now "understands the importance of thinking for himself."

Attorneys for the other defendants did not immediately respond to requests for comment.

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/ju...ror-plot-disrupt-power-grid-tr-rcna17441

Hold on, that's not how I viewed it at all. If the crime, lynching, is done because the person race, religion, etc, can be proven, then by all means, add hate crime to the list of charges. Maybe that's what they meant by the law.

I took it as to read that any lynching regardless of by who, to who, gets the hate crime label, which I feel is the wrong use of the designation.

Maybe I misinterpreted the intent, or maybe I wasn't clear on my view and purpose of my explanation.

this was essentially my comments as well.

ok, that makes sense. I was


J/C

I did look it up and it looks like Trump signed the bill in 2020 making lynching a federal crime

https://apnews.com/article/laws-emm...s-bills-a8ba886090278a61825bc15e2795228d

and i think thats the part thats actually confusing to me, because i swore we already handled this.

You are arguing WAY TOO HARD against this for it not to be somehow personal. I can't even believe we have to have this conversation, let alone care to read these weak ass arguments for not making it a hate crime. I don't want to pick on you because you say you think lynchings are horrible... but man, your words don't sound like that over the course of this thread. You sound like somebody bent on keeping lynchings out of the hate crime category, and I don't get that at all.

So Putin is maneuvering his nukes around the world today. I think NATO needs to act on that. No way should they let him position for an all out nuke war. No idea how they deal with it, but I don't want to wake up to; “We should have seen it coming!” IF Putin is at the end of his reign, he won't go quietly into the night. And after the threats this week, I think we should take him seriously, and smack his ass down.

I am not saying that I don't have that same worry, I do. But I think there is a group of high ranking Russian officials and Generals in discussion right now about the timing of making Putin disappear. I don't know. Maybe I've watched too many movies.

can somebody explain whats going on with the GOP in Arizona and Idaho? man they're in a crisis right now.

Thanks to both you and super for explaining your intent. That's far more my concern than even harsher punishments. I'm not sure how old either of you are and have no idea which state you went to for your high school education. I went to high school in Ohio during the 70's. So much of our history was ignored in my school system. While there were facts used in those classes, it was more about the facts that were ignored than anything else. America has long denounced the use of propaganda by our foreign enemies, yet it was used in my schooling to paint an image of a great America who has been wronged in the past but never committed great wrongs.

That's why we have people even today that will tell you, "Slavery ended after the civil war. Nothing else needs to be said." When most rational thinking people understand that Jim Crow laws, actually being able to vote, especially in the south, being served in public establishments, equal opportunity to education and a host of other issues went on even through much of the 1960's.

Another false so called fact gets spread. We keep hearing how so many liberal cities are soft on crime. How the sentencing is light on criminals. Yet we also know that the largest percentage of the black population and the percentage of black people living in such urban areas are higher than anywhere else in the country. So if they are so soft on crime, how is it that statistics prove that blacks receive a longer prison sentence for the exact same crimes as white people? Something about those numbers show their assertions are false.

So my biggest concern is that such hate crimes be a part of the record. Something so obvious and proven people can't look back and claim they have stopped or do not exist. We already see a political movement in place trying to cover up history. To prevent the parts of history they don't want their children taught being hidden from our current and future generations. And it's being done by the same people who say a part of their political beliefs are about personal responsibility. I find it both sad and disgusting at the same time.

Lol. That's pretty good.