Trump-Inspired Hate Crime In Boston

[Yumyumsuppertime]

I love it. The people have had enough of this invasion and are starting to fight back.

Because that elderly, drowsy, homeless man was part of a fucking hostile invasion - simply because of his ethnicity. Is that what you're fucking saying right now? Really? You are here telling me that guy was a fucking threat - not only to these men, but to the country at large?

It's already been reported. Let's just let it go for now.

[Prussia-Steinbach]

America will be great when we treat our homeless, downtrodden, impoverished, and discriminated against, as well as we do our celebrities.

Nonsense, China and Mexico will keep beating us if we do that. We need to build a wall dammit!

Let's make it twenty feet tall and a circle, run electricity through it, and put violent xenophobes and racists in it.

[Maineiacs]

Not the Rubio part. I understand that. I meant about the relocation of his residency to Maine.

Oh.

Well, the Constitution forbids Electors from casting their votes for both a Presidential and a Vice Presidential candidate from the same State. So if Jeb Bush were to remain a Floridian, he couldn't on the same ticket as Marco Rubio, because then only one of the two of them could be elected.

Moving to Maine resolves the problem.

Oh, just HELL no! Isn't LePage punishment enough?

[New Frenco Empire]

It doesn't surprise me. I mean, Trump has always been a lowlife piece of dog shit. It's just that the farther his campaign goes, the shit smell just gets stronger.

[Farnhamia]

Oh.

Well, the Constitution forbids Electors from casting their votes for both a Presidential and a Vice Presidential candidate from the same State. So if Jeb Bush were to remain a Floridian, he couldn't on the same ticket as Marco Rubio, because then only one of the two of them could be elected.

Moving to Maine resolves the problem.

Oh, just HELL no! Isn't LePage punishment enough?

No. For all the years we had to listen to "As goes Maine, so goes the Union," over and over and over, you get a years of political vengeance.

[Othelos]

I'm putting this here instead of in the Republican nomination thread since it's a major story on its own, and the issues raised could cause that discussion to veer off-topic.



The beating is awful. There's no denying that. However, what I find to be the most shocking element of this is Trump's response to this attack. Rather than express sorrow that his words were misconstrued or condemn the attack, he chose to dismiss it with a "Boys will be boys" style comment. I'm a free speech advocate, and I believe firmly that he's had a perfect right to say whatever he said. However, to casually disregard the fact that his words inspired such an ugly action, and to not even express horror at the attack or sympathy for the victim? That's beyond the pale. It's one thing to break convention when running for office, but it's another thing entirely to discard the basic tenets of human decency.

A few questions spring to mind: Is this going to tank his campaign, or will it simply encourage the id-focused among his followers? Does he realize how Goering-ish he sounds? Is there a risk of his reckless rhetoric leading to further attacks?

I love it. The people have had enough of this invasion and are starting to fight back.

You love that a homeless man was beat?

[USS Monitor]

Oh.

Well, the Constitution forbids Electors from casting their votes for both a Presidential and a Vice Presidential candidate from the same State. So if Jeb Bush were to remain a Floridian, he couldn't on the same ticket as Marco Rubio, because then only one of the two of them could be elected.

Moving to Maine resolves the problem.

Oh, just HELL no! Isn't LePage punishment enough?

I'd be pissed off too if I was from Maine. It's pretty dishonest -- or at least dishonorable -- to claim you're "from Maine" when your credentials to be taken seriously as a presidential candidate are based on being governor of Florida.

That's why I was saying that rule about getting people from different states is no longer serving its purpose.

[Farnhamia]

Oh, just HELL no! Isn't LePage punishment enough?

I'd be pissed off too if I was from Maine. It's pretty dishonest -- or at least dishonorable -- to claim you're "from Maine" when your credentials to be taken seriously as a presidential candidate are based on being governor of Florida.

That's why I was saying that rule about getting people from different states is no longer serving its purpose.

Have fun storming the ... amending the Constitution!

[USS Monitor]

I'd be pissed off too if I was from Maine. It's pretty dishonest -- or at least dishonorable -- to claim you're "from Maine" when your credentials to be taken seriously as a presidential candidate are based on being governor of Florida.

That's why I was saying that rule about getting people from different states is no longer serving its purpose.

Have fun storming the ... amending the Constitution!

I don't know what the Republicans find so difficult about just running tickets where they are actually from different states.

[Alien Space Bats]

A hate crime implies that black and gays are different from white hetero sexuals. If you support hate crime laws you are a racist.
In my opinion a crime and punishment should be based on what they did and not the color of their skin or their sexual orintation.

I bet you're one of those people who think that only white people can be convicted of hate crimes.

<pause>

The first person convicted of a hate crime in America was a 20-year old black man who led a mob of young blacks in assaulting a white boy.

[Tsaraine]

I'm putting this here instead of in the Republican nomination thread since it's a major story on its own, and the issues raised could cause that discussion to veer off-topic.



The beating is awful. There's no denying that. However, what I find to be the most shocking element of this is Trump's response to this attack. Rather than express sorrow that his words were misconstrued or condemn the attack, he chose to dismiss it with a "Boys will be boys" style comment. I'm a free speech advocate, and I believe firmly that he's had a perfect right to say whatever he said. However, to casually disregard the fact that his words inspired such an ugly action, and to not even express horror at the attack or sympathy for the victim? That's beyond the pale. It's one thing to break convention when running for office, but it's another thing entirely to discard the basic tenets of human decency.

A few questions spring to mind: Is this going to tank his campaign, or will it simply encourage the id-focused among his followers? Does he realize how Goering-ish he sounds? Is there a risk of his reckless rhetoric leading to further attacks?

I love it. The people have had enough of this invasion and are starting to fight back.

Neo-Vinnland, *** warned for trolling ***. This seems to be fairly clear-cut support for violence against Hispanic people.

~ Tsar the Mod

[Big Jim P]

I'd be pissed off too if I was from Maine. It's pretty dishonest -- or at least dishonorable -- to claim you're "from Maine" when your credentials to be taken seriously as a presidential candidate are based on being governor of Florida.

That's why I was saying that rule about getting people from different states is no longer serving its purpose.

Have fun storming the ... amending the Constitution!

Might not need to.

[Ifreann]

Have fun storming the ... amending the Constitution!

Might not need to.

"liberallogic101"?

[Big Jim P]

Might not need to.

"liberallogic101"?

Source is poor, but the argument is logical. That is why I said "might".

There are ways to end the whole anchor baby issue. Whether or not any of them would make it past SCOTUS, who can tell?

[New Macedonia propper]

A hate crime implies that black and gays are different from white hetero sexuals. If you support hate crime laws you are a racist.

100% wrong.

No He is 200% wrong,Hate Crime laws protect everyone.you just cherry picked lines from the actual law

[Neo-Vinnland]

I love it. The people have had enough of this invasion and are starting to fight back.

Neo-Vinnland, *** warned for trolling ***. This seems to be fairly clear-cut support for violence against Hispanic people.

~ Tsar the Mod

Yeah. That isn't trolling. If you're going to be a moderator, learn your definitions before you try to moderate. Voicing my actual opinion is not trolling.

I'll let you think about that one.

[Ifreann]

"liberallogic101"?

Source is poor, but the argument is logical. That is why I said "might".

There are ways to end the whole anchor baby issue. Whether or not any of them would make it past SCOTUS, who can tell?

Defining the jurisdiction of the US to not include certain people and by so doing denying them the protection of the constitution doesn't really sound logical to me.

[Gauthier]

Neo-Vinnland, *** warned for trolling ***. This seems to be fairly clear-cut support for violence against Hispanic people.

~ Tsar the Mod

Yeah. That isn't trolling. If you're going to be a moderator, learn your definitions before you try to moderate. Voicing my actual opinion is not trolling.

I'll let you think about that one.

Reading comprehension is your friend.

http://forum.nationstates.net/viewtopic.php?f=16&t=260044#020

Trolling/Baiting/Gloating: Trolling is defined as posts that are made with the aim of angering people. (like 'ALL JEWS ARE [insert vile comment here]' for example). Someone disagreeing with you does not equate to trolling. Intent is incredibly important and will be judged by the moderators to the best of their abilities. Honest belief does not excuse trolling. Disagreements are expected and conducting yourself in a civil manner is ideal. Trollbaiting is the action of making posts that attract trolls. A prime example of trollbaiting would be gloating over the results of an election.

[Big Jim P]

Source is poor, but the argument is logical. That is why I said "might".

There are ways to end the whole anchor baby issue. Whether or not any of them would make it past SCOTUS, who can tell?

Defining the jurisdiction of the US to not include certain people and by so doing denying them the protection of the constitution doesn't really sound logical to me.

“Senator Jacob Howard, the author of the citizenship clause of the Fourteenth Amendment – he spoke – he told us what he meant. He defined who would fall within the ‘jurisdiction of the United States.’ Ready?

“‘Every person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, [meaning the states – their jurisdiction] is, by virtue of natural law and national law, a citizen of the United States. This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons. It settles the great question of citizenship and removes all doubt as to what persons are or are not citizens of the United States. This has long been a great issue in the jurisprudence and legislation of this country.’

From the article. Emphasis mine.

[The Archregimancy]

Have fun storming the ... amending the Constitution!

Might not need to.

Not according to the legal precedent set by the 1898 Supreme Court ruling in U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark.

The Supreme Court found that Wong Kim Ark, who was born in San Francisco to non-citizen Chinese immigrants, was a US citizen on the basis of his birth in the United States; this despite Congress passing a series of 'Chinese Exclusion Acts' that heavily restricted the ability of Chinese labourers to enter the United States, and denied them both the right of permanent residency and the right to become naturalised citizens.

Wong was detained when he re-entered his native United States following a visit to family in China on the basis that he was incapable of being a US citizen given that the Exclusion Acts denied citizenship and residency to both Wong and his parents; the Supreme Court ruled 6-2 that the Exclusion Acts couldn't overrule Wong's 14th Amendment right to citizenship on the basis of his birth in the United States.

I note that the above link sharing the opinions of 'nationally syndicated radio show host Mark Levin' makes no reference to U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark. The 19th-century opinion from 'Senator Lyman Trumbull, Chairman of the Judiciary Committee and a powerful supporter of the Fourteenth Amendment' used as an attempt to bolster the argument indeed predates U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark by some 32 years.

[Checheyna]

100% wrong.

No He is 200% wrong,Hate Crime laws protect everyone.you just cherry picked lines from the actual law

Before a more heated argument starts about hate crimes, every crime committed against a single or group of people can be considered a hate crime, as a hate crime is defined as a crime against a race of people, therefore, no matter what, it could be considered a hate crime for say a regular "white" male to beat up say another "white" male and it be called a hate crime because he is 1/16th german, and he uses that as justification for it to be a "hate crime."

[Mallorea and Riva]

Neo-Vinnland, *** warned for trolling ***. This seems to be fairly clear-cut support for violence against Hispanic people.

~ Tsar the Mod

Yeah. That isn't trolling. If you're going to be a moderator, learn your definitions before you try to moderate. Voicing my actual opinion is not trolling.

I'll let you think about that one.

Trolling/Baiting/Gloating: Trolling is defined as posts that are made with the aim of angering people. (like 'ALL JEWS ARE [insert vile comment here]' for example). Someone disagreeing with you does not equate to trolling. Intent is incredibly important and will be judged by the moderators to the best of their abilities. Honest belief does not excuse trolling. Disagreements are expected and conducting yourself in a civil manner is ideal. Trollbaiting is the action of making posts that attract trolls. A prime example of trollbaiting would be gloating over the results of an election.

It's a fine line but you clearly crossed it. Second opinion: I concur with the punishment handed out by Tsar.

[Big Jim P]

Might not need to.

Not according to the legal precedent set by the 1898 Supreme Court ruling in U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark.

The Supreme Court found that Wong Kim Ark, who was born in San Francisco to non-citizen Chinese immigrants, was a US citizen on the basis of his birth in the United States; this despite Congress a series of 'Chinese Exclusion Acts' that heavily restricted the ability of Chinese labourers to enter the United States, and denied them both the right of permanent residency and the right to become naturalised citizens.

Wong was detained when he re-entered his native United States following a visit to family in China on the basis that he was incapable of being a US citizen given that the Exclusion Acts denied citizenship and residency to both Wong and his parents; the Supreme Court ruled 6-2 that the Exclusion Acts couldn't overrule Wong's 14th Amendment right to citizenship on the basis of his birth in the United States.

I note that the above link sharing the opinions of 'nationally syndicated radio show host Mark Levin' makes no reference to U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark. The 19th-century opinion from 'Senator Lyman Trumbull, Chairman of the Judiciary Committee and a powerful supporter of the Fourteenth Amendment' used as an attempt to bolster the argument indeed predates U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark by some 32 years.

Then I stand corrected.

[Ifreann]

Defining the jurisdiction of the US to not include certain people and by so doing denying them the protection of the constitution doesn't really sound logical to me.

“Senator Jacob Howard, the author of the citizenship clause of the Fourteenth Amendment – he spoke – he told us what he meant. He defined who would fall within the ‘jurisdiction of the United States.’ Ready?

“‘Every person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, [meaning the states – their jurisdiction] is, by virtue of natural law and national law, a citizen of the United States. This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons. It settles the great question of citizenship and removes all doubt as to what persons are or are not citizens of the United States. This has long been a great issue in the jurisprudence and legislation of this country.’

From the article. Emphasis mine.

Yeah, I read it, after it insisted that I turn off my ad blocker. Excluding the children of visiting diplomats makes sense. I understand that to be the done thing with diplomats.

[Atlanticatia]

Well, Trump's comments are incitement to hatred, 100%. And that can lead to serious issues.