P. S. Clarification: Anti-Semitic hate crimes are the most common among "religious" focused hate crimes. Not ALL hate crimes. (Those against racial minorities are the most common.)Still, as noted, Anti-Semitic crimes are only 3% of all crimes of any kind.
Personally I would be for at least one armed guard in schools and places of worship as a protection measure but then I read somewhere that China did exactly that after a series of viscous knife attacks on kids in schools but then knife attacks started happening outside the schools as kids were getting on buses.
... gun guards may just be a case of shifting onto softer targets elsewhere.
Again, the problem here is the assumption that there is a problem that is so pervasive that it demands some kind of systemic response. There is no data to support that assumption - and more to the point, it merely feeds upon, and helps to sustain, a culture of panic, if not outright paranoia.The country needs to get a grip. To respond to issues rationally and dispassionately. The response to managing chaos is reason, not more chaos. Moreover, you proceed from the assumption that every problem has a solution. Not true. Some problems are just difficulties that we must manage as best be can. The pursuit of perfect safety is a fool's errand. There is no such thing as there is in life an inevitable element of risk. The goal then is to rationally analyze and measure that risk and reply with proportionate measures. Turning every institution into society - from churches to schools to shopping malls - into armed camps is not only wildly disproportionate, it can be self-defeating.
"Still, as noted, Anti-Semitic crimes are only 3% of all crimes of any kind."Scant consolation for the dead and their families for whom the number is 100%.
@MementoMori_ well how does it reflect on Jews only being 1% of the population?
WhitePanther88 & MementoMori_ Anti-semitic (or other crimes) are nothing to be proud of. However, my point is that a society that becomes so risk averse and worried about possibilities however remote, will stagnate. It is not a healthy environment for liberty. It is a balancing act and if we turn every school, every church, every theater and so on into an armed camp, it will have effects both immediate - free movement becomes problematic - and long term - a society that prizes security over freedom. The balance needs to be struck and must be reasonably related to the actual risks.
@nightdrotYour conclusion is essentially the same as mine. i. e. after all is said and done, a rational analysis leads to the conclusion that as horrendous as these mass killings are, so far in America, they are extremely rare and the number of casualties is small compared to the population. Therefore it is not worth the prohibitive cost of trying to completely eliminate them. I call this the "lottery security" choice and wrote about it here.The much more significant problem, in terms of casualties, is the every day one off murders occurring particularly in inner city minority communities where minorities are murdering and injuring other minorities in war like numbers. But discussion about that problem isn't in the headlines like these spectacular mass murders because the Democrats control the media and publicizing minorities killing minorities is counter to the Democrat's agenda.
@WhitePanther88"well how does it reflect on Jews only being 1% of the population?"Could you clarify what you mean by that?
@MementoMori_ you said antisemitism is only 3% of all crime yey jews are only 1% of the US population
@WhitePanther88 I don't recall saying that. I think it was nightdrot who quoted that 3% figure. But if I understand what you are asking, I think I can address it anyway. What I think you are asking is, if Jews make up only 1% of the population, how do you explain that they commit 3% of all crimes? Doesn't that mean that Jews commit a disproportionately large percent of all crimes relative to their population?I think you may have misinterpreted nightdrot's statistic and so your question is flawed.As I understand it, nightdrots states that. crimes *AGAINST* Jews constitute 3% of all crimes, not crimes committed *BY* Jews constitute 3% of all crimes. So in fact, if all figures herein are correct, the correct conclusion is that Jews are disproportionately the *VICTIMS* of crimes, not the perpetrators of crimes.Your question is a good one though. My guess is that the crime rate committed by Jews is probably disproportionately low, not high.
Crimes rates of crimes committed by some of the larger minority groups however, such as blacks, are astronomically high compared to their populations. We all know why that is of course... they are forced into crime because white people are racists.
@MementoMori_ Yes, that is correct. My statistic was from DoJ. It shows that 3% of all crimes are specifically anti-Semitic hate crimes - that is crimes directed against Jews because they are Jews.Overall, anti-Semitic hate crimes represent the largest category of any hate crimes directed against a religious group.
"Overall, anti-Semitic hate crimes represent the largest category of any hate crimes directed against a religious group."Gee, you mean it's not Muslims? The media will be so disappointed! Better get a food tester if you are going to quote statistics like that! ... (especially if you eat at a vegan restaurant)
@MementoMori_ Well, I can't speak to the media, but coincidentally enough, hate crimes against Muslims represent only 3% of all hate crimes. (For some reason 3% seems to be the magic number.)As to whether of not that will disappoint the media, I will defer to others better read on the media than myself.
Ah but the media is so hellbent on portraying Muslims as the victims of choice for religious persecution in America that I thought it was considered general knowledge and okay for even the amateur political scientist to take this as universally accepted fact. Just one more case of the left's "settled science" that is not only not settled, but completely debunked by the irrefutable facts? Say it ain't so!
@MementoMori_ It be so. That said, it is fair to say that the media is as much effect as cause of such views. Which is why I made the point that posting armed guards at every church, synagogue, shopping mall, school and so on is a disproportionate reaction to the news of the day.One of the dangers of a media/digital/celebrity culture is that it produces a psychology that is stimulated less by data and more by images. Something is not perceived as being real until lots of eyes see pictures of it.Anti-Muslim incidents are statistically few, but because they had a degree of visibility the perception is that they are pervasive. Indeed, discussion in the media of anti-Semitism was relatively slight until the events in Pennsylvania.Those images gave a reality to the data that raw numbers could not - and the media, being visually oriented, reinforces that phenomenon. To be sure, there is a degree of bias, but that is perhaps less important than the means by which info is conveyed.
nightdrot...You seem like an intelligent guy and implied that you are Jewish. I would value your opinion on something that has puzzled me for at least the past decade. Please weigh in if you feel you can.If you look at the facts, to me it seems overwhelmingly clear that the party that most represents the interests of the Jewish community in the United States is the Republican Party, and that in fact in my view at least the Democrat Party has become a captive of those elements in the world who are the most anti-Semitic and is promoting the agendas of those elements. I can cite example after example of what I am talking about, but I won't do that here. I will just take a chance that you agree with my premise (however a long shot).So here comes my question. I am stupefyingly perplexed by the fact that the majority of Jews support the Democrats. It seem insane to me. If you will indulge my assertions, can you shed any light on how this seemingly impossible contradiction is true?
I have my own theory, but I would welcome another view from someone such as yourself.
@MementoMori_ A couple of things.First, I am myself not Jewish, but my uncle married into a Jewish family. His wife lived under both the German occupation of Poland and then under its communist government until they escaped. (My other aunt and her family are Lutherans who escaped from East Germany.)Secondly, the Jewish vote is more Democratic by habit than by any strict ideological connection. Our parties are not rigidly ideological parties as you tend to see in Europe, but are broad and lose knit coalitions - and I can assure you that Senator Schummer is not anti-Semite.Jews came into the Democratic party in second half of the 19th century as an outgrowth of that party's tradition as the party of protest and minorities. (At that time, the GOP was the party of the WASP establishment.) This relationship was solidified by FDR's opposition to Nazi Germany in WWII, when the GOP was isolationist.CONT.
To be sure, the Democrats, as their coalition has become more based on racial, ethnic and religious minorities has absorbed some elements that are hostile to the Jewish community. However, thus has it ever been. The "Solid South" Democrats also had little love for the Jewish community.Also, different strands of Judaism have tended to more or less liberal views. Reform Judaism is typically quite liberal on social issues. (Indeed, some schools of Judaism are not opposed to abortion as Judaism is inherited through the mother and a woman is given more deference than the baby.)In any event, this is not a static situation. Over time, various constituencies will move and change their allegiances and it is not unlikely that the Jews will move toward the GOP in time. Think of this, up until the 1970s, Baptists and Methodists - now at the very heart of the GOP coalition - were once solidly Democratic. As Disraeli said, "Finality is not in the vocabulary of politics."
Outstanding insight! Thank you very much.I do not think Schumer is an anti-Semite, I think he, like I think many Jewish people are simply wrong and supporting the camp that runs counter to their own interests. I do, therefore think that the sum result of Schumer's actions is very bad for Jews.You touched on the history of Jewish political belief. I think that therein lies the explanation for the contradiction. I think that the Democrat Party has gone through a seismic shift in the past few decades and while at one time may have been more in synch with Jewish interests than the GOP, has now become absolutely inimical to their interests. But I think that many Jews have not changed with the times and are still seeing the Democrats as "Your father's political party."I know someone who is Jewish who was devastated by the Squirrel Hill Jewish community's cold rebuke and clearly uninspired welcome of President Trump after the shooting there... CON'T...
He was terribly embarrassed by some of the comments of the leaders there (not to mention some of the regular residents) who clearly failed to welcome President Trump's respects and even tried to encourage him to stay away. He was disgusted by it.His feeling was that their behavior was counter to their own interests as Jews. His reasoning was that if he, as a Jew, was disgusted by their failure to praise President Trump for his generosity, even if he does not support the president's political views, then how do people who aren't Jewish view that scenario? In his view, they would be understandably disgusted, and probably much quicker to view it as some kind of a problem with Jews... that nothing pleases them. In other words, by their behavior they are promoting anti-Semitism. I am not implying that they are responsible for this, or that they are not entitled to their views as every other American is. But I have to say I am puzzled that they do not see the clear result of their behavior.
@MementoMori_ Well, a few points.First of all, my remark about Schummer was a bit of a joke. Not intended seriously. After all, you don't run into too many Jewish anti-Semites.Second, you are way overemphasizing the degree to which party identification in the United States is an ideological matter. Except among the most committed, party I. D. in the U. S. is more a matter of habit, tradition, custom, family history and other such factors. In the case of the Jewish community it is a confluence of history and habit. The Democrats in the post-Civil War era became the party of protest and minorities and Jews, being outside the WASP establishment, were drawn to it. It was not an ideological commitment - and is not now. It was - and is - more historical accident, and as such may change.CONT.
As to your friend, I would be extremely reluctant to draw empirical conclusions from anecdotal analysis. My hunch is that he may have a point, but it is a bit of an oversimplification of a more complex dynamic.In any case, anti-Semitism was not born of sympathy for President Trump. It existed well before him - indeed, given that the President has Jewish family it is problematic for him - and I think it a bit of an overstretch to blame Jews for anti-Semitism simply because they don't appreciate the President.That has much too much of the whiff of blaming the victim.
“Second, you are way overemphasizing the degree to which party identification in the United States is an ideological matter. Except among the most committed, party I. D. in the U. S. is more a matter of habit, tradition, custom, family history and other such factors.”On the contrary, that is precisely my point. I think most Jews are Democrats out of habit because that is their family tradition and that they have not kept up with the ideological changes the Democrat Party has gone through.People like Schumer spend an outsized amount of energy trying to shoehorn the interests of the Jewish community into an every more narrow ideological opening to justify their affiliation with the Democrat Party because they are captives of habit and trying to rationalize their now outdated choice. Change is hard.CON'T...
Example… After every other president in modern times promised to move the US embassy to Jerusalem, President Trump actually did it… and took plenty of grief in the process. The reaction in the Jewish community in Squirrel Hill? I heard one person interviewed there say that it was BECAUSE President Trump did this that this subhuman attacked them. WHAAAAA! This is the view of the Jewish community that the general public sees. This is what forms their views. You would think the people in that community are smart enough to understand what comments like that do.Okay that's anecdotal too. But after enough anecdotes, a pattern emerges does it not?Thank you for the interesting discussion... hope we can talk again some time. If you leave a final comment I will read it later.
@MementoMori_ The problem is that you insist on attributing an ideological identity to the parties that they do not have. There is no "shoe-horning" going on - at least no more than has historically been the case.A Democrat from Manhattan is a very different thing from a Democrat from inner city Chicago from West Virginia and so on. There is no need to change parties - at least not so far - as the party accommodates a far wider range of views than the stereotype suggests. President Trump moved the embassy to Jerusalem - and that was hugely important to Jews for whom Israel is a top tier issue. For those whom social liberalism is a more important matter, it was less consequential. There are no ideological monoliths here, and therefore the Jewish community, in general and in broad consensus, has stayed with the Democrats. (Indeed, Schummer, for all his animosity to Trump, praised him the loudest over the embassy move.)CONT.
A relevant aside: You may recall that, initially, the GOP was not favorable to Israel and in fact sided against it (and Britain and France) in the Suez War in 1956. That only began to change when evangelical Christians moved from the Democratic party to the GOP in the 1960s.Evangelicals believe that for Christ to return, the Jews must regain the Holy Land. Consequently, as they moved to the GOP for reasons related largely to domestic policy - court rulings on abortion and prayer in public schools - they changed the GOP's position on Israel.This is how these things change, and right now what you have is a bi-partisan consensus in favor of Israel. Consequently, the Jews have little reason to tip toward the GOP on that issue. They get the result they want without having to abandon the Democrats on the social issues.CONT.
Bottom line, the Jews may change over time, but right now there is not really any reason for them to. They get social liberalism from the Democrats, and support for Israel from both parties. Thus, out of habit and an adequate status quo, the Jews have very little reason to change party ID. Again, they may in time, but you have to assume that at the very least that they know their own interests well enough.It seems problematic to second guess them on the basis of anecdotal evidence and an assumption that one knows their best interests better than they do. History may prove you right - but only time will tell.Anyhow, greatly enjoyed the conversation.
PS: I’m Jewish. ;)I debated on whether or not to post this but hoped you might find it interesting.Here’s a perspective you may not have thought of considering your earlier comments.I think Jewish people can in fact be anti-Semites. And perhaps some of the most pernicious anti-Semites of all. It happens to the human psyche of some percentage or people after a certain amount of persecution and anti-x propaganda.Take for example some of the Jews in the concentration camps in Nazi Germany. They turned on their fellow Jews and sided with the Nazis. Was it out of fear with the notion that if they helped the Nazis maybe they themselves would be spared? Partially maybe, but also out of an actual disdain for other Jews and a convoluted buying into the Nazi narrative. They blamed their own fellow Jews for the predicament they were in.CONTINUED...
I have known many Jews who to one extent or another do the same thing today. They side with anti-Semites. The common term for them is “self hating Jews.”Another part of the syndrome is that they hate the fact that they are Jewish because there is so much hatred among others for Jews. So they live in a kind of denial. “I’m not really a Jew, don’t hate me.”I have learned that these tend to be weak people who are overly concerned about what other people think of them and have an insecurity complex. The ones with the stronger sense of identity, don’t have this syndrome.This phenomenon is not unique to Jews either, although throughout the millennia they have probably been the most consistently persecuted group in human history. So you find a lot of it among Jews. But you also find it to some degree among other groups, sometimes for slightly different reasons.CONTINUED...
For example, so many Americans today seem to feel they owe the world some kind of apology based on all the relentless anti-American propaganda in the press. You can see it in their writings even right here on this site. They are “self hating Americans.” In a similar way, they seem to think that they need to bash America so that the America haters will see them as “one of us” and maybe go easy on them. Just like self hating Jews, they are weak people who place too much emphasis on what other people think of them and suffer from a lack of self-esteem.
@MementoMori_ Well, this is very interesting but whatever the motives - self-hatred, ideological commitment, whatever - we find ourselves where we are. One might argue that the Jewish community has more in common with the GOP than with the Democrats, but at the end of the day they don't see it that way in large enough numbers to make a difference. Indeed, by implication, given the numbers, the author of the article is suggesting what amounts to mass self-hatred.That strikes me as implausible. (Indeed, you do find some Americans who feel the need to apologize for being an American. They are, however a distinct minority.)Given that you are Jewish, if you strongly believe that your community's loyalty to the Democrats is misguided, then about the most any non-Jew can suggest is that you take your case to your community. Use the media and other avenues that are open to you.CONT.
If nothing else, persuasion is better than assuming that those who disagree with you suffer from - in effect - a form of mass mental illness. That latter explanation may be cathartic if you find yourself in a minority view within your community, but it is not apt to change many minds.
I've found that most Jewish supporters of the left are no different than most non-Jewish supporters of the left. They cannot be persuaded by facts and reason, their minds are tuned to something other than that, the nature of which is incomprehensible to me.
@MementoMori_ Well, that is a bit harsh. There is an irreducible number of people who cannot be swayed by any argument. However, particularly in this context when you are speaking of the overwhelming majority of Jews, you will find - IF you make the effort, IF you are careful in argument, IF you know your stuff - that people will be open to persuasion.If you start with the presumption that those you are addressing are dullards who are not apt to know their own best interests, you are apt to find that people will tune you out.Never forget, it is not about what you want to say. It is rather about what you want people to hear. Communication and persuasion are an art, not a science after all.
Oh many are not dullards. Many are seemingly quite intelligent, although maybe that strains the definition of intelligent. But it seems to me that the current left is motivated by some kind of emotional compulsion that is impersuadable. I think I can generally produce an above average case for my views. But yet I find persuasion hopeless when it comes to the current crop of liberal minds.
@MementoMori_ All you can do is try. There is no assurance of success and remember, unless you have a monopoly on wisdom and virtue, on any given issue, you might be wrong.The point is what both can learn from an exchange. Indeed, if you learn something and the other guy did not - consider yourself the winner.
All true. And I am always willing to entertain the possibility that my view is wrong. But I so rarely am able to have an exchange with the other side that sticks to facts and reason. Usually at some point, and usually very early on, the retorts deviate from the logic and reason to something on the spectrum between name calling and emotional jingoism. I don't know how wisdom can ever be exchanged when this is the case. As the saying goes, hell is the impossibility of reason. Thank you once again. Hope you enjoyed this exchange as much as I did.
sorry... meant something other than jingoism, but forgot the word I meant to say and typed the wrong thing...
@MementoMori_ Actually, "jingoism" works rather well. Good choice.Yes, indeed, I much enjoyed chatting. A great pleasure.
The major drawback I see with security is that mass shooters instead of attacking a school or church/snagoge is that they just go elsewhere, a softer target.
Also true... As long as we have a population of hundreds of millions of people, and the freedom to bear lethal weapons, we cannot stop the relatively rare mass murders. There will always be crazy people among a population of that size. More people are killed in one off murders every year by far than in these sensational attacks. But of course those murders don't serve political agendas to talk about or make for good TV ratings. This is not to minimize the heinous nature of the attacks but only to put them in the perspective of the issue as a whole. Fact is, that as a free society we just have to accept a certain level of murders will take place. We should do what we can to prevent them of course, and we already do. But even if you spent the entire national budget on eradicating it, it cannot be eliminated. Rational people have to settle in large part for lottery security. It's part of the cost of freedom.
They can still buy them ilegally
Mentally ill people almost always get their guns through legal means. If someone has had a mental break they often do not have the capacity to go searching through the black market to obtain guns. The United States of America has more mass shootings per capita than any other country in the Western World. The one difference between the U. S. and other western countries is lack of gun regulations. Do you not think guns are sold illegally in other western countries too? This is basic logic. A+B does in fact equal C.
In one year the US had more shootings in Detroit than Afganistan. Statistically it was safer for a guy from Detroit to join the military than stay in Detroit. Most of the guns were ilegal.
Again do people from other Western countries not have a black market on guns? If you think the U. S. is the only country where one can purchase an illegal gun, your delusional. The U. S. has more mass shootings than any other western country. The only difference here is it is easier to access guns in the U. S. then it is in other countries. The simplest solution is often the right one. Between 1982 and September 2018 out of 103 mass shootings 72 were carried out by guns that were legally obtained. That's 69.99%. Only 15 were determined to be carried out by illegally purchased weapons. 15 were undetermined and 1 was a mixture.
How many were purchased because the FBI didn't do their job?
The FBI can't be expected to read people's minds. They aren't some omniscient presence that knows all. Simple background checks performed before before someone buys a gun would do a world of good but as soon as people mention it the NRA get their backs up. I grew up in a rural area of Canada almost everyone has a gun for hunting back home despite us having not only a gun registry but strict gun laws. They do the background checks, they take mandatory safety training and they register their guns and it isn't a problem. No one wants to take guns away from law abiding citizens, but something needs to change.
Well most states require you pass a background test, other states with no background checks often gave very low rates of mass shootings but states and cities with gun bans often have high gun crimes.
I have a hard time believing that is true for mass shootings when as I said the majority of mass shootings in the United States are committed with legal guns. Also as I said no other western nation with gun control has your problem. What is so different about the U. S. that what has worked for nearly all other developed nations but won't work for you?
I said shootings, is it so much worse when a person dies in a mass shooting rather than just being shot dead? Mass shooting barely register when compared to overall gun crime in the US.Europe has had its fair share of mass shootings.Alphen aan den Rijn shopping mall shooting2013 Annaberg shooting2013 Belgorod shooting2012 Bucharest hair salon shootingCharlie Hebdo shooting2015 Gothenburg pub shootingJewish Museum of Belgium shootingKerch Polytechnic College massacreJune 2018 Malmö shootingMarseille bar massacreNanterre massacre2011 Norway attacksNovember 2015 Paris attacksSofitel massacreMoss Side mass shootingWhen they can't get guns they use bombs, lorries and knives.In nice a guy in a lorry killed 86 people and the injured of 458 others compared to the law Vegas shooter who killed 58 people and left 851 injured. It won't be long until somebody decides to use a flamethrower, they are easy to build and even have tutorials on YouTube.
It isn't worse but lots of mass shootings could be prevented from gun control laws. If what you say is true then why is not being replicated in other western developed nations? Why does Canada have a significantly lower violent crime rate on all fronts. Why does Britain and France? If what you say is true, then we would be having an influx of more creative mass killings and yet we don't.
America was founded and established with the use of guns. Unregistered guns are everywhere and thats not about to change. Gun control has been and will continue to be implemented at a state level and not a national one. Don't like the laws in your state?; move to a different one.
Canada has fewer people and has always had a lower rate of crime and murder. Europe has always been strict on guns hence why they have more mass killings via bomb and lorry. Your more likely to be a stab victim in Canada than in the US and more likely to be murdered by a stranger.As I understand it crime is on the rise in Canada while it's falling every year in the US.
If you read up on historical events and passages you'd understand why.
@Nachowedgie No. There's no justification for hate towards Jews or any religion.
Like I said, educate yourself
@Nachowedgie No. You should educate yourself.
I am educated, you clearly aren't.
@Nachowedgie Where? The school of conspiracy theories? That's where you got your education from if you think it's justified to hate Jews.
Please highlight in any of my messages where I say the words "it's justified to hate Jews" please do try, I can wait all week :3
@Nachowedgie You implied it.
No, you just want to believe I implied or so you can create some fake moral high ground in an attempt somehow "beat me" in a debate.
@Nachowedgie Then what exactly did you mean by "educate yourself"? What historical events do you mean?
I mean educate yourself. Read up and find out why, time and time again throughout history they've been run out of every country they settled in.
@Nachowedgie Exactly! Conspiracy theories against Jews. That's not real education.
No, that is history but I'm also against conspiracy theories but there are historical reasons why Jews were kicked out by multiple countries cuz why would most of these countries kick them out for no reason?
@100lbguy that's true but usually because unrest was stirred up by powerful nobles who owed them money. They'd kick them out then beg them to come back because the loss of so many well educated proffessional was a major loss to them and worse when they were in rivial countries.
Nazi Germany is a prime example, if they just kept their jewish scientist, they could have discovered the atomic bomb but thank God they didn't.
@100lbguy they already knew about the atomic bomb, they just lacked the resources to build one."The Manhattan Project began modestly in 1939, but grew to employ more than 130,000 people and cost nearly US$2 billion (about $22 billion in 2016 dollars). Over 90% of the cost was for building factories and to produce fissile material, with less than 10% for development and production of the weapons. Research and production took place at more than 30 sites across the United States, the United Kingdom, and Canada." How could Germany in 1940 match that when they still had artillery being towed by horses.
There's a fascinating story about some underground resistance types in Scandinavia (don't remember which country) purposefully sabotaging the Nazi's attempts to create fissile material to use in bombs.
@HungLikeAHorsefly Norway, where heavy water was being produced. It shows how resource poor the Nazi atomic programme was.
Scroll Down to Read Other Opinions
We did recently have a bulletproof glass door installed next to another bigger door, and that's basically what we can afford.
Oh, and direct contact with the police which has a big precinct like 2 minutes away
Agreed, Trump's is a big Israel supporter and his grandkids and daughter Ivanka is Jewish.
The Democrats have been stirring up hatred since Trump started running, even recently Hillary called for no civility but has since taken that back. Police officers have been shot, republicans have been shot and letters laced with Riccin have been sent to Trump and other republicans
White: Trump has made it very difficult to stay civil, as he continuously denigrates, vilifies, and castigates those who dare disagree with him. This has gone far beyond anything seen from a president in over a century. Trump spread hate, and unfortunately, people pick up on that hate, and act in very bad ways. Trump supporters love to say how badly other people act, but ignore how so much worse Trump acts. Republicans no longer believe in the saying; "look who'se calling the kettle black."
It's goes way back to before Trump won the election when republicans and conservatives were being assaulted. Even when Trump won democrats were calling for violence.
White: Again, as the leader of the nation, what other president has encouraged violence towards political opponents, what other president has said those who disagree with him are evil people, and the enemy of the people, in the last 150+ years? If you don't know, I'll give you the answer. None. Only Trump. As the leader of the nation, he sets the tone, and his tone has been denigration, vilification, and encouragement of violence.
Obama was the leader of the nation when conservatives and republicans were being assaulted in the streets, I guess he set the tone.
White: Your implications are garbage. Obama never once set the tone for violence, by encouraging people to rough up a guy who was protesting against him. Obama never once said Fox was the enemy of the people. And on and on. Trump has spread more hate and nastiness than any president for in over 150 years, and Republicans fall all over themselves trying to deny it.
Fox news never went after Obama the way CNN has gone after Trump from the beginning all because he stood against their candidate Hillary.
White: CNN didn't go after Trump because of Hillary. They reported the hateful and denigrating remarks he was making, as well as his outlandish comments. Like accusing Ted Cruz's father being mixed up with the Kennedy assassination of Kennedy, and his wife being ugly. Republican consider honest, good news reporting about Trump, as going after him. Republicans seem to have a good way of telling real news and fake news. It the news praises Trump, it's real news. If the news doesn't praise Trump, it's fake news, and going after him.
That must have been why Bernie Supporters were protesting CNN in 2016.
White: I'm not a Bernie supporter, and never have been. There are groups that when they hear something negative about their candidate, they immediately believe it's untrue, made up, false, etc. Apparently some of Bennie's supports felt that way. A much larger percentage of Trump supporters feel this way. Trump supporters can tell when the new if true news. Trump supporters know the news is real, when it praises Trump, and they know it's false news when, when the news doesn't praise Trump.
Anything CNN puts out is fake news.
White: Of course, people who are part of Trump's cult have to believe this. That's because, when a news organization like CNN tells the truth, Trump looks bad. by the way Have you considered that CNN plays many tapes of Trump speaking, etc? It's not just their reporting, they show what trump is actually saying, and it's pretty bad.
Even the Sanders supporters are saying that.https://youtu.be/df7jy8s4Nywhttps://youtu.be/N-rrqnn_Hv4https://youtu.be/EHkFZ-0Ccto
That's really not going to deter a mass shooter
Church with guards, what is this world coming to...
Very solid logic.
Haha indeed that is some pretty clear cut logic right there I approve
I brought up a similar topic to a pastor. Why was he getting a flu shot instead of trusting in god? He never answers my questions because they take too much thought i suppose.
Well you know how it is never let things like truth science logic or such get in the way of good ideology
Relax in the safety of your own delusions.
For sure After all your own delusions are far superior to anyone else's delusions not to mention totally better than reality which is just generally a pesky annoying thing
Typical response from an anti Semite
Some EU citizens do that without the 2nd amendment, some think a lorry licence means the can drive through a crowd of people like the law allows it.
That happens in the US too
We have tough lorry licensing laws to prevent it.
It happened in NYC last year, and someone did it with a standard car in Charlottesville
True but we have tough laws on building explosive devices too... oh wait... It's almost as if criminals, terrorists and psychopaths don't care if murder is ilegal.
It doesn't have to be expensive. They can use volunteers.
Are they under attack currently? I know Coptic Christians are in Egypt
why under attack dude all Christians r coptic so we live together with peace and when terrorist attack occur we r killed more than them cuz majority is muslim
They've been persecuted ever since the Arabs invaded and took their country.
Spanish invaded two americas then usa if we wanna turn table over arabs we should do the same with Europe
Yeah why not, all those former Christian countries run into the ground by their invaders could be filled up by those in the Americas.
I don’t think the asker stated those guards should be paid for via tax dollars, but is simply asking for opinions if Synagogues need or should have them.I would agree that that’s something they ought pay for themselves, or simply take full advantage of the 2nd Amendment and everyone bring their guns to the synagogue. In any case, I think upping the antie however they choose for more protection is definitely a good idea.
Nazis are far left sir. Nazi - national socialism - socialism - left wing. You can try to claim they’re socialists in name only and therefore are really fascists which are far right wing, but I’d respectfully disagree. They fly the flag of socialism, in name only and therefore that’s what they represent.Also what exactly is the difference between Hitlers and Stalins regimes? No one has a problem saying Stalin is left wing cause he’s a commie, yet there is absolutely no difference from communist Russia to Nazi Germany in terms of structure of government and very little in terms of ideology. So Nazi’s are left wing.
@Exterminatore Realistically, YES. But these days they have become synonymous with the far right, at least in America. In Europe, they're considered far Left.Well, Stalin killed his own people, Hitler didn't. I know you can say, "But Hitler killed Jews that were German citizens." YES, but he didn't kill Aryians. Stalin on the other hand killed millions of Russians.by the way, Seattle has a statue of Stalin, yet the same Liberals want to see Confederate statues removed.
Hitler did. He killed political rivals and others deemed needing of “political reeducation” who were Aryan.Amazing about the Stalin statue.I know in America we want to say right wing, guilty white liberals love trying to edge away from Hitler and make him and the Nazis right wing. It’s cause they just can’t accept the fact that yeah... that’s you’re boy that did that shit, don’t try to make him right wing.
Kinda antisemitic today aren't we?
These people especially the ones in Israel aren't the real Jews nor their descendents. They are fakers and of Satan according to Jesus Christ.(Jesus speaking)Revelation 2:8‘These things says the First and the Last, who was dead, and came to life: “I know your works, tribulation, and poverty (but you are rich); and I know the blasphemy of those who say they are Jews and are not, but are a synagogue of Satan.
@WhitePanther88 Don't even bother lol. He is so deluded on the matter of Jews.
Well not really current israeli government is protecting Christians from the Saracens. Muslims are the real enemies
@tartaarsaus best not mention to him that Jesus and most of his apostles were Jewish lol
@Nadim171: The Lord Jesus Christ is clear on the matter. The original real Jews were desert people (Arabs) from Asia not Eurepoen whites.
Besides it doesn't really matter. Anyone that rejects Christ as Lord and Savior is going to hell.
@Hispanic-Cool-Guy You do know that Judaism a) passes on to the mother, b) converts are not seen as especially different and shockingly, immigration exists. Also, millions of Jews in Israel and outside it are Mizrahim or Sephardim, meaning that they are actually from North Africa or Arab countries.
Well the jews were not Arabs, they lived in Israel. Arabs are actually the Muslims. And now days Muslims kill more Christians I never heard about a jew killing a Christian since the 15th century
@Nadim171 he means that for hundreds of years Jews in Israel mostly lived in Arab and North African countries which is true, in the last hundred years these Jews have fled these countries to Israel.
I've not seen or heard of it, either, nor around mosques.
In the Netherlands there always are units of one of the four military branches present at larger and high-risk Jewish institutions
Lol. Synagogues and Jewish schools have been attacked plenty of times in the last 10 years
I stand corrected.
What is the answer to violence? How would you stop a violent person?
not more violencethats what the NRA WANTSthey make money off of murders
So just let them have free reign to murder?
i dont know what the answer is, that would please everyone, butevery time you arm someone, you just make the nra happier because they know that every murder, makes people want to go out and protect themselves, by causing more violencethats how the nra makes their money. NOT THROUGH HUNTING
Well, in Europe there have been plentiful attacks against Jewish schools and synagogues without such availability for guns.
@tartaarsaus this is true.