Woah, this is a default personal text! Edit your profile to change this to what you like!
Administrator
|
Post by Walter on May 17, 2023 12:37:35 GMT -5
Your own source contradicts your arguments of Blacks and Hispanics being hunted, as well as the political motivation. As with any numbers it pays to break them down a little. In this case, your source ID's 244 murders by white supremacists over a 10-year period. For God's sake, almost 1/3 are done by prison gangs. Subtract them out and you are left with about 170 murders over ten years (17 per year)...that's an existential threat to the United States? Come on. Break it down a more and your own source does just that with ideological vs. non-ideological killings: "One of the most striking features of white supremacist murders is the large proportion of non-ideological killings to ideological killings. Over the past 10 years, only 86 of the 244 white supremacist killings (35%) were ideological murders. The remainder were group-related but not ideological attacks, were related to traditional criminal activities, or were murders for which no clear motive could be determined." So...35% of the 244 total (and this includes the prison gangs) are ideological murders? That's 85 murders over 10 years or an average of 8.5 per year. That's the existential threat to the United States? Again, come on. Your source also backs up what I said earlier about things being de-centralized: "The white supremacist movement is not monolithic. It comprises a number of factions or segments of various sizes, differentiated by factors such as religions, subcultures, tactics and goals, regional influences and ideological particulars. At any given moment, one part of the movement, such as the alt right, might be ascendant, while another part, like the religious sect Christian Identity, might be in decline. Some people may belong to more than one faction at once; only a few are mutually exclusive. But there are also many white supremacists who don’t gravitate to any faction but are more “generically” white supremacist. Nor are most adherents members of formally organized groups." So...you have a bunch of de-centralized groups that individually have killed 85 people for ideological reasons in the past 10 years and THAT is the existential threat to the United States? Who claimed it to be an 'existential threat'? Biden called it 'the most dangerous terrorist threat'. Is that true or not? And back to my original response to the piece, I'll say it again. Great Argument, Derek! Essentially, "There aren't a lot of us, so there's nothing wrong with it." |
|
Woah, this is a default personal text! Edit your profile to change this to what you like!
Godlike Member
|
Post by oujour76 on May 17, 2023 14:43:31 GMT -5
Who claimed it to be an 'existential threat'? Biden called it 'the most dangerous terrorist threat'. Is that true or not? And back to my original response to the piece, I'll say it again. Great Argument, Derek! Essentially, "There aren't a lot of us, so there's nothing wrong with it." Got it. Not existential, it's just the most dangerous terrorist threat. Respectfully, you're picking shit with the chickens. Turns out "the most dangerous terrorist threat" domestically is non-affiliated whack jobs killing an average of 8.5 people per year for ideological reasons. Biden is pitching a dog whistle with that white supremacist narrative. Doesn't mean there is no issue, does mean it's overblown. IMO at least.
|
|
|
Full Season 2022 Douche Champion
|
Woah, this is a default personal text! Edit your profile to change this to what you like!
Administrator
|
Post by Walter on May 17, 2023 15:19:23 GMT -5
Who claimed it to be an 'existential threat'? Biden called it 'the most dangerous terrorist threat'. Is that true or not? And back to my original response to the piece, I'll say it again. Great Argument, Derek! Essentially, "There aren't a lot of us, so there's nothing wrong with it." Got it. Not existential, it's just the most dangerous terrorist threat. Respectfully, you're picking shit with the chickens. Turns out "the most dangerous terrorist threat" domestically is non-affiliated whack jobs killing an average of 8.5 people per year for ideological reasons. Biden is pitching a dog whistle with that white supremacist narrative. Doesn't mean there is no issue, does mean it's overblown. IMO at least.
Is Biden politicizing the issue? Yes. But I notice you failed to respond to this: The New York Times published a series this past weekend detailing Tucker Carlson’s descent into white nationalism. The Times amassed impressive detail to support its findings, revealing how Fox’s use of “minute by minute” ratings analysis displayed the popularity of white-nationalist themes, driving Carlson to ramp them up. Its description of Carlson as promoting white nationalism is supported by Fox employees both former (“He is going to double down on the white nationalism because the minute-by-minutes show that the audience eats it up”) and current (“Fox executives wanted to focus on ‘the grievance, the stuff that would get people boiled up’ … ‘They’re coming for you, the Blacks are coming for you, the Mexicans are coming for you’”).So, with the far-right media pushing a white nationalist narrative to an audience clearly eager to embrace it, (something you claim nobody supports), IMO, the alternative POV needs to be heard. Is Biden overstating it? If the deaths were all that is in play, yes. But with Tucker Carlson, half the GOP congressional caucus, one GOP presidential candidate, a FL governor, and rest of the conservative talking heads all on board with that narrative, there is more at stake at the existential level than perhaps you care to admit. |
|
Woah, this is a default personal text! Edit your profile to change this to what you like!
Solid Member
|
Post by kaz on May 17, 2023 15:37:40 GMT -5
Got it. Not existential, it's just the most dangerous terrorist threat. Respectfully, you're picking shit with the chickens. Turns out "the most dangerous terrorist threat" domestically is non-affiliated whack jobs killing an average of 8.5 people per year for ideological reasons. Biden is pitching a dog whistle with that white supremacist narrative. Doesn't mean there is no issue, does mean it's overblown. IMO at least.
Is Biden politicizing the issue? Yes. But I notice you failed to respond to this: The New York Times published a series this past weekend detailing Tucker Carlson’s descent into white nationalism. The Times amassed impressive detail to support its findings, revealing how Fox’s use of “minute by minute” ratings analysis displayed the popularity of white-nationalist themes, driving Carlson to ramp them up. Its description of Carlson as promoting white nationalism is supported by Fox employees both former (“He is going to double down on the white nationalism because the minute-by-minutes show that the audience eats it up”) and current (“Fox executives wanted to focus on ‘the grievance, the stuff that would get people boiled up’ … ‘They’re coming for you, the Blacks are coming for you, the Mexicans are coming for you’”).So, with the far-right media pushing a white nationalist narrative to an audience clearly eager to embrace it, (something you claim nobody supports), IMO, the alternative POV needs to be heard. Is Biden overstating it? If the deaths were all that is in play, yes. But with Tucker Carlson, half the GOP congressional caucus, one GOP presidential candidate, a FL governor, and rest of the conservative talking heads all on board with that narrative, there is more at stake at the existential level than perhaps you care to admit. Is that the same new york times that "won" a Pulitzer prize for their reporting on the fake Russia collusion scandal? |
|
Woah, this is a default personal text! Edit your profile to change this to what you like!
Administrator
|
Post by Walter on May 17, 2023 15:52:22 GMT -5
Is Biden politicizing the issue? Yes. But I notice you failed to respond to this: The New York Times published a series this past weekend detailing Tucker Carlson’s descent into white nationalism. The Times amassed impressive detail to support its findings, revealing how Fox’s use of “minute by minute” ratings analysis displayed the popularity of white-nationalist themes, driving Carlson to ramp them up. Its description of Carlson as promoting white nationalism is supported by Fox employees both former (“He is going to double down on the white nationalism because the minute-by-minutes show that the audience eats it up”) and current (“Fox executives wanted to focus on ‘the grievance, the stuff that would get people boiled up’ … ‘They’re coming for you, the Blacks are coming for you, the Mexicans are coming for you’”).So, with the far-right media pushing a white nationalist narrative to an audience clearly eager to embrace it, (something you claim nobody supports), IMO, the alternative POV needs to be heard. Is Biden overstating it? If the deaths were all that is in play, yes. But with Tucker Carlson, half the GOP congressional caucus, one GOP presidential candidate, a FL governor, and rest of the conservative talking heads all on board with that narrative, there is more at stake at the existential level than perhaps you care to admit. Is that the same new york times that "won" a Pulitzer prize for their reporting on the fake Russia collusion scandal? Who said it was fake, (other than Trump and his toadies)? |
|
Woah, this is a default personal text! Edit your profile to change this to what you like!
Godlike Member
|
Post by oujour76 on May 17, 2023 15:52:44 GMT -5
Got it. Not existential, it's just the most dangerous terrorist threat. Respectfully, you're picking shit with the chickens. Turns out "the most dangerous terrorist threat" domestically is non-affiliated whack jobs killing an average of 8.5 people per year for ideological reasons. Biden is pitching a dog whistle with that white supremacist narrative. Doesn't mean there is no issue, does mean it's overblown. IMO at least.
Is Biden politicizing the issue? Yes. But I notice you failed to respond to this: The New York Times published a series this past weekend detailing Tucker Carlson’s descent into white nationalism. The Times amassed impressive detail to support its findings, revealing how Fox’s use of “minute by minute” ratings analysis displayed the popularity of white-nationalist themes, driving Carlson to ramp them up. Its description of Carlson as promoting white nationalism is supported by Fox employees both former (“He is going to double down on the white nationalism because the minute-by-minutes show that the audience eats it up”) and current (“Fox executives wanted to focus on ‘the grievance, the stuff that would get people boiled up’ … ‘They’re coming for you, the Blacks are coming for you, the Mexicans are coming for you’”). I did respond. I pointed out that your metric was dead people, remember? I asked you for how many dead people there were immediately after Carlson and Fox "boiled up" the white nationalists. Even suggested that with the impressive detail the NYT provided, should be easy to connect those kinds of dots. You failed to respond...can I assume the number is zero?  So, with the far-right media pushing a white nationalist narrative to an audience clearly eager to embrace it, (something you claim nobody supports), Not at all what I said. Virtually nobody in the country supports white supremacists. I'll stand by that. Tucker Carlson's audience averaged about 3 million viewers per show. You're making the giant leap that every one is a white nationalist. And a "gianter" leap assuming that those 3 million are driving a white nationalist narrative resulting in the "greatest domestic threat" we face. FFS, there are more than 200 million of voting age in the U.S. IMO, the alternative POV needs to be heard. Is Biden overstating it? If the deaths were all that is in play, yes. Dead people was your metric, remember? But with Tucker Carlson, half the GOP congressional caucus, one GOP presidential candidate, a FL governor, and rest of the conservative talking heads all on board with that narrative, there is more at stake at the existential level than perhaps you care to admit. On board with what narrative? Be specific. No drive by shooting allowed. |
|
|
Full Season 2022 Douche Champion
|
Woah, this is a default personal text! Edit your profile to change this to what you like!
Solid Member
|
Post by kaz on May 17, 2023 15:58:41 GMT -5
Is that the same new york times that "won" a Pulitzer prize for their reporting on the fake Russia collusion scandal? Who said it was fake, (other than Trump and his toadies)? Oh, right, I forgot. "Mueller didn't find any evidence of collusion crimes, but that doesn't mean there wasn't any." |
|
Woah, this is a default personal text! Edit your profile to change this to what you like!
Administrator
|
Post by Walter on May 17, 2023 16:33:50 GMT -5
Who said it was fake, (other than Trump and his toadies)? Oh, right, I forgot. "Mueller didn't find any evidence of collusion crimes, but that doesn't mean there wasn't any." First, there is no such thing as a crime of collusion. It doesn't exist in the law. With that in mind, the report spends more than 100 pages listing all the connections between Trump and Russia with an eye toward charges of conspiracy between Trump and Russia. In the end, they found insufficient evidence to charge Trump with that offense, so you can take heart in that. But I urge you to read Sections 4 and 5 of volume one before you run your mouth that there was 'no evidence' Russia and the Trump campaign had contact with each other. |
|
Woah, this is a default personal text! Edit your profile to change this to what you like!
Solid Member
|
Post by kaz on May 17, 2023 19:43:21 GMT -5
Oh, right, I forgot. "Mueller didn't find any evidence of collusion crimes, but that doesn't mean there wasn't any." First, there is no such thing as a crime of collusion. It doesn't exist in the law. With that in mind, the report spends more than 100 pages listing all the connections between Trump and Russia with an eye toward charges of conspiracy between Trump and Russia. In the end, they found insufficient evidence to charge Trump with that offense, so you can take heart in that. But I urge you to read Sections 4 and 5 of volume one before you run your mouth that there was 'no evidence' Russia and the Trump campaign had contact with each other. I urge you to read the segment I bolded and enlarged for you. That's all I need to know. |
|
Enter your message here...
Godlike Member
|
Post by trnyerheadncough on May 17, 2023 19:44:55 GMT -5
First, there is no such thing as a crime of collusion. It doesn't exist in the law. With that in mind, the report spends more than 100 pages listing all the connections between Trump and Russia with an eye toward charges of conspiracy between Trump and Russia. In the end, they found insufficient evidence to charge Trump with that offense, so you can take heart in that. But I urge you to read Sections 4 and 5 of volume one before you run your mouth that there was 'no evidence' Russia and the Trump campaign had contact with each other. I urge you to read the segment I bolded and enlarged for you. That's all I need to know. “Insufficient” doesn’t mean “none”. |
|
|
That's TrnYerHeadnCough...
"Champion Douche -- 2012 AND 2013"
Back to Back...they may have to retire the contest...
"Bowl Champion Douche --2012-2013"
Get it right.
|
Woah, this is a default personal text! Edit your profile to change this to what you like!
Solid Member
|
Post by kaz on May 17, 2023 19:53:32 GMT -5
I urge you to read the segment I bolded and enlarged for you. That's all I need to know. “Insufficient” doesn’t mean “none”. Was he found guilty? No? Good. Shut up. |
|
Enter your message here...
Godlike Member
|
Post by trnyerheadncough on May 17, 2023 19:57:01 GMT -5
“Insufficient” doesn’t mean “none”. Was he found guilty? No? Good. Shut up. Way to move the goalposts. I guess you think OJ didn’t kill anybody either. |
|
|
That's TrnYerHeadnCough...
"Champion Douche -- 2012 AND 2013"
Back to Back...they may have to retire the contest...
"Bowl Champion Douche --2012-2013"
Get it right.
|
Woah, this is a default personal text! Edit your profile to change this to what you like!
Solid Member
|
Post by kaz on May 17, 2023 20:07:42 GMT -5
Was he found guilty? No? Good. Shut up. Way to move the goalposts. I guess you think OJ didn’t kill anybody either. This thread's not about OJ. |
|
Enter your message here...
Godlike Member
|
Post by trnyerheadncough on May 17, 2023 20:08:52 GMT -5
Way to move the goalposts. I guess you think OJ didn’t kill anybody either. This thread's not about OJ. Nice fold. |
|
|
That's TrnYerHeadnCough...
"Champion Douche -- 2012 AND 2013"
Back to Back...they may have to retire the contest...
"Bowl Champion Douche --2012-2013"
Get it right.
|
Woah, this is a default personal text! Edit your profile to change this to what you like!
Solid Member
|
Post by dilligaf on May 17, 2023 20:50:58 GMT -5
You answered a question with a question, i.e. not an answer. I can put it in the form of a statement if it makes you happier. in the USA there isn't a domestic terrorist group larger than white supremacists. If you can name one, do it. The Democrat Party.
Gee, that was easy.
|
|
|
THANK GOD for President Donald J. Trump 47!!
NEVER FORGET ASHLI BABBITT !!
|
