Are you embarrassed yet?

Got the presidency the house and the Senate and possibly even the judiciary.

 

No. For purposes of representation (determining the amount of elector votes less 2 for senate, for each state, the number of residents is counted. Doesn't matter if they are citizens or not. Illegal or not. A large number of illegals actually gives Democrats some electoral votes that should have gone to a Republican state. In a way, you could say the illegals were voting for Hillary.

 

I know it's hard to reason with logic when you're against it, so lets keep it simple and short. What's the difference between a white gang killing people or black or hispanic gangs killing people? They're all groups organized around hate and power. Their color doesn't make a difference. Can one be considered terrorists while others aren't, when they all do the same thing...terrorise people through fear. Just because the KKK is so easily identifiable, doesn't make it any more of a terrorist group than a gang in Chicago no one wants to know about.

So, what say you? Your answer determines your relationship with reality and facts and not just your perception. Prove my prediction wrong please.

 

So you want your children to aspire to live off the governments dime and not work for a living.

 

Chicago gangs act to gain money and they attack anyone who gets in their way. The KKK acts against a race for reasons of pure racist hate. There's no real gain for them in it. It's just evil.

I'm sorry if you can't see the difference but that is on you, -not me.

 

So Terrorism is just about racism? You didn't answer the question. Both are gangs. Both terrorise people. You think black gangs aren't racist? They aren't evil? Are you joking? Part of the initiation is to kill completely innocent people. Other gangs like MS-13 have a rather large network and do infinitely more damage than the KKK. So, why aren't they ALL terrorists?
I know EXACTLY what you're seeing. You're redefining what terrorism is in your own eyes and of course, not considering black gangs racist if they kill someone white. So, if YOU can't see the difference, that's your ignorance, and sadly my prediction was right. White people=bad Minorities=good. Like Liberal clockwork.

 

I don't approve of either. And both are policing issues. What's your point?

 

The point was the study about who the REAL dangers are that you posted...concluding that it was white people. Did you even read it? I disregarded the study as veiled racist drivel because it highlighted KKK and Nazi white supremacist groups as Terrorists, because of a few mass shootings, but declined to include all the gang related mass shootings and violence in their numbers. Then YOU defended the study, in turn approving it, by calling my analysis of the actual facts, not so truthful along with other insults. So I simplified what their study was implying and you agreed with me & here we are. How could a study arbitrarily discount certain mass shootings due to race, if not for one very specific reason?

You believed the study because it came to a conclusion you agreed with, without actually understanding what the purpose of the study was.

Seems you forgot what the heck you were even talking about I guess=)

 

It seemed obvious to me that the study, which was about terrorism, considers gang crimes to be "criminal activity" as opposed to acts with the sole intention of terrorizing the population.

Like I said, gangs are in it for money. But don't make the mistake of asserting that I approve or turn a blind eye to gang violence. This popular right wing garbage claiming the left and liberals don't mind attacks on whites is vile BS. And if you can't come up with a better commentary than that, you should just find something else to do.

 

What's the difference between a black gang killing 3 or 4 people or a white gang killing 3 or 4 people? The KKK doesn't terrorise MORE people. MS-13 does a **** load more damage. But the study called the KKK terrorists, WHICH THEY ARE, but did not consider gangs terrorists, which they ALSO ARE. Stop beating around the bush.

Liberals certainly mind attacks on white people. HOWEVER, the race of the attacker matters a lot more to them. Who do you think invented the "Hate Crime" but failed to acknowledge that black on white violence should be considered? Eventually, some news organizations have changed their tune recently, but that was NEVER the original intent. Hate crime specified white on "insert minority" at first. If we're all equal, then a crime is a crime and race, sexual orientation or whatever shouldn't matter.

The intent of the study obviously wasn't so obvious.

 

I answered that. Reread my last reply.

I don't agree. End of story regarding me.

 

I did. You think black gangs just do it for the money, so hey, its bad but not THAT bad=) Killing someone for money just isn't as bad as killing someone because of their color. Subjective Liberal reasoning=) And the KKK in their delusion think they can turn the country white again by popping out of the woodwork and doing something vile. Rare, but sick. That's no less evil than killing someone to get into a gang and that occurs every day. Yet, the KKK murder gets far more press than the constant gangs killing going on. Wierd huh.

 

You don't think it's bad?? Sheesh.

You are admitting to being racist here. Your ideas of ethics and justice are off the charts.

None like any I've ever heard of. These are yours.

 

"it highlighted KKK and Nazi white supremacist groups as Terrorists, because of a few mass shootings"

Really ? This is conservative doublespeak of the NRA, nothing more.
I don't consider "a few mass shootings" inconsequential.

 

In theory, yes. In two centuries plus, I think only a actual handful have voted against the voters.

 

True, I'm worried about what would happen if they did so. The way we are now it might get violent, or at least very, very interesting.

 

I hadn't thought of it like that, but yes it would.

 

Plenty of stay at home dems and third party voters in your recent election, hard to know if that was because Hillary was so appalling or whether they were just in republican strongholds. You'd need to know the voting numbers from each area. Makes all the talk about the popular vote irrelevant though unless you have compulsory voting like Australia. Next time the Dems win using the EC system they can change the rules of the game, they won't though because they just won and will be telling the Republicans to ST FU about the EC,................and on and on it goes..........

 

I am well aware of the fact that there is no god. I would disagree that there is no plan, but I lean more toward it being Putin's plan rather than something Dumb Donny thought up. Since I lived through the years of Mutual Assured Destruction, I'm probably more aware than most of the lunacy of thinking one can do anything to stop a complete oik like Trump from doing his very worst for the American people, while in office. Even if that includes getting them wiped out in a nuclear holocaust because of some imagined slight that bruised his oh, so fragile, ego.

 

Although a deist myself, I can really understand why someone would take the current situation, nevermind living under MAD, as indicative of something else.

Considering that we have not (yet) ended modern civilization with nukes, or some weaponized superbug, I think either the DM running the game has a soft spot for us, or we just have some freakish rolls of the dice.

 

So Atheists get the last laugh while the missiles are airborne?

 

Yep they get that warm feeling of satisfaction moments before they are vaporised. The agnostics get to think to themselves ''I thought so''.

 

Or the DM decided to end the game?