Omnibus Politics Thread: Campaign 2016 EditionFollow

I think Cruz should be forced to supply his fingerprints and birth certificate so we can confirm that he is the Zodiac Killer.

We don't want to be hasty, the DNA evidence is circumstantial, for all we know Ted Cruz could have sucked the blood of the zodiac and gained his powers rather than being the Zodiac himself. But at least one of these things is definitely true. Either he is the Zodiac, or is a night walking zodiac demon.

Isn't it interesting that noone has seen Ted Cruz and the chupacabra in the same place?

Wait, aren't our representatives vetted when they take office? How could Obama serve as a Senator if nobody knew where he was from? Or do they just check his driver's license to see if it's at least a well done fake?

Requirements for each office is different. Some more restrictive than others. President having some of the stricter requirements.

Which was weird, since all the hundreds of anonymous PMs I got disagreed with all those other anonymous PMs.

There you have it, Mr President admits Flynn is guilty.

Edited, Mar 31st 2017 9:56am by lolgaxe

I said "high profile", because those are the ones that we know about.

Knowing that you would could be assaulted for simply existing is placing fear into the population as a whole.

Hence why I said in a meaningful difference. To the people being assaulted, it's all the same. I understand the textbook difference, but there are negligible differences on the actions, especially to the victims.

I replied to your quote "Not all hate crimes are terrorism". Your example is that not all terrorism is a hate crime. Unless you were to argue the absence of love in the said terrorist action, I would agree.

I can't think of anyone here who's that naive.

It'll be really fun when the fight is to reinstate the filibuster.

ISIS says America is being run by an idiot. America wonders if ISIS is being run by the guy with the red coat on those Hotel.com commercials.

Edited, Apr 5th 2017 9:55am by lolgaxe

So Bannon is off the National Security Council, which falls short of public evisceration but is still somewhat reassuring.

And? The high profile ones tend to also be the ones that had the broadest impact, and thus are more likely to be known. Thus, they're inherently more likely to share many of the features associated with terrorism. That in no way means that all hate crimes are terrorism, which, if you recall, was the point I was questioning.



No. It puts fear into you. If the aspect of your existence that it targeted is shared by a group, then it puts fear into that group. That's not the same as the population as a whole. If I plant bombs in random places where people congregate and set them off to randomly kill whomever happens to be there at the time, then everyone is at risk, and everyone is fearful. If I hate left handed red headed step children, and engage in targeted attacks against that set of people, then the only people who are afraid are those in the group.

The former case is terrorism (well, most likely). The latter is hate. While they can overlap, they are not the same.



Again though, that's the point. The objective of terrorism is to put fear into everyone, not just the victims of the attack, or those who share some criteria with those victims. That is, arguably, the defining characteristic of terrorism. It's not targeted at a single group. It's specifically designed to make everyone take the terrorist seriously because anyone could be killed.



I gave two examples. One showing how hate crimes don't always meet the criteria to be terrorism, and another showing how terrorism doesn't always meet the criteria to be a hate crime. You've chosen to ignore the first one. I'll repeat it for you:

Also, the people around left handed red headed step children have to be terrified, in case Gbaji decides to perpetrate his attack on them while they are near, which could have collateral damage.