Congress Adds A Bunch Of Non-Violent Crimes To The Violent Crimes List
from the FOR-THE-BORDER dept
The Supreme Court said Congress needed to fix a law. So it’s trying to. And it’s not going to improve anything.
The “crime of violence” needed to necessitate the removal of a lawful permanent alien was too vague. The Court wasn’t being needlessly pedantic. All the law states at the moment is this:
The term “crime of violence” means—
(a) an offense that has as an element the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against the person or property of another, or
(b) any other offense that is a felony and that, by its nature, involves a substantial risk that physical force against the person or property of another may be used in the course of committing the offense.
“Involves a substantial risk” of physical force use. The justices said the law was unconstitutionally vague because it could potentially sweep up crimes that aren’t inherently violent, but could escalate if everything went Murphy’s Law.
Before holding a lawful permanent resident alien . . . subject to removal for having committed a crime, the Immigration and Nationality Act requires a judge to determine that the ordinary case of the alien’s crime of conviction involves a substantial risk that physical force may be used. But what does that mean? Just take the crime at issue in this case, California burglary, which applies to everyone from armed home intruders to door-to-door salesmen peddling shady products. How, on that vast spectrum, is anyone supposed to locate the ordinary case and say whether it includes a substantial risk of physical force? The truth is, no one knows.
The fix is in. And it’s almost worse than doing nothing. As C.J. Ciaramella reports for Reason, the proposed fix would add a bunch of crimes not normally thought of as “crimes of violence” to the list of crimes of violence.
Republicans in the House passed a bill this morning that would reclassify dozens of federal crimes as “crimes of violence,” making them deportable offenses under immigration law. Criminal justice advocacy groups say the bill, rushed to the floor without a single hearing, is unnecessary, is overbroad, and will intensify the problem of overcriminalization.
The Community Safety and Security Act of 2018, H.R. 6691, passed the House by a largely party-line vote of 247–152. Among the crimes that it would make violent offenses are burglary, fleeing, and coercion through fraud.
Burglary is normally committed when no one’s around, separating it from robbery, in which stuff is taken directly from victims, often requiring the use or threat of force. It also adds stalking, arson, “interference with flight crew members and attendants,” and “firearms use” [?] to the mix.
But the weirdest addition appears to be a bone tossed to law enforcement. From the bill [PDF]:
The term ‘fleeing’ means knowingly operating a motor vehicle and, following a law enforcement officer’s signal to bring the motor vehicle to a stop—
(A) failing or refusing to comply; or
(B) fleeing or attempting to elude a law enforcement officer.
Car chases are now crimes of violence. Suspects are better off ditching the vehicle and running like they sell drugs in the school zone. Pull over immediately or get evicted from the country. It’s a weird thing to throw into a list of crimes known for their inherent violence. Then again, the list of “violent” crimes is already weird — a seeming overcorrection by Congress to expel as many “permanent” residents from the country as possible. Then there’s insertion of “conspiracy,” which makes thinking or talking about the “violent” criminal acts listed a violent crime itself.
The law was unconstitutionally vague prior to this. If this bill is passed, the problem shifts from vagueness to overbreadth. And it very likely will pass. It was rushed through the House on a party line vote, and the party controlling the House will be passing it on to a president (assuming the Senate likes the House’s idea) aligned with the controlling party — one who’s partial to legislation that makes it easier to kick out non-Americans while also rubbing the belly of the nation’s law enforcement agencies.
Filed Under: congress, crimes, fleeing, non-violent crimes, supreme court, violent crimes
Comments on “Congress Adds A Bunch Of Non-Violent Crimes To The Violent Crimes List”
what the hell is going on here? the US is supposed to be an advanced, democratic country, not some 3rd world dictatorship! these republicans seem to be interested in one thing only and that is ensuring that ordinary people become their slaves and are punished vehemently for doing what shouldn’t even be classed as crimes, just to put the fear of fuck into them!
Re: Re:
I think they are trying to start a war.
Re: Re: Re:
I’ve seen comments that confirm this: the idea is to stage a pitched battle between the Libs and the Cons, the idea being that winner takes all. It’s the logical endgame of extremist thought in which dissenters are presented as the enemy. It really scares me that people think this way.
Re: Re: Re: Libs and cons
Yes, when the librarians and the Constantinople citizens (isn’t it called Istanbul now?) go at it, the elephants suffer.
Good job, Rush.
E
Re: Re:
It can’t happen here. It couldn’t happen in 1930s Germany either, until it did. Suggest it might be happening here and you get shouted down — just like people raising warning flags in the 1930s were.
Just substitute immigrants for Jews/Romany/homosexuals and the picture becomes clear.
It is times like this that I wish that the actual process of law making went:
Legislative to write it.
Supreme Court to give a ya or nay on Constitutionality of it.
Presidents desk for his signature.
Re: Re:
Supreme Court is already super over booked with the number of cases they need to hear. They already turn down almost all cases appealing to them. They get about 7000 requests a year, while they only have hearings for about 80 per year, and decide another 50 per year without hearing arguments.
Re: Re: Re:
Over booked eh? The Supreme Court is at a low point in their workload.
That is not to suggest that they should take on more cases as some of their work has been pretty shoddy. Personally I would prefer quality over quantity, but given the work load history I don’t see why it couldn’t be both.
Re: Re: Re:
I have no idea how to go about looking for this but, how many cases would the SCOTUS have if they had shot down laws that were unconstitutional before they were signed and enforced and made its way to their desk? ie: would an ounce of prevention on their part (stopping the unconstitutional law) be better then a pound of cure (having to try the case before them and all the time and money involved)?
Re: Re: Re: Re:
In what conceivable way do you believe that ruling on every law would reduce the Court’s caseload compared to only ruling on some laws?
Re: Re:
What I wish, is if when the Supreme Court found one part of a law unconstitutional, it invalidated the entire law it was a part of.
Just don't think about it.
There once was a political party who used to claim they were for smaller government. That party seems to be currently bent on more and more intrusion…from the government, ever expanding rules and agencies designed to be overbearing, and unaccountable, with a free hand to ‘know’ what one was thinking.
To correct for an obtusely worded law that was declared unconstitutional they decide to do violence to the word violence, with the implicit intent on removing more people from our country. A country what was once declared the land of the free and home of the brave who welcomed immigrants with fairly open arms.
Doing violence, to them, now includes that you might have thought about the possibility that someday, somehow, in some dastardly way, considered bringing harm to another. Bring on the thought police, and while at it, consider how this law might pass Constitutional muster.
Re: Just don't think about it.
GOP makes the small government claim whenever they are not in power, their story changes as soon as they are in power and they no longer understand what you are talking about.
Re: Re: Just don't think about it.
“Small government” means “corporate welfare. For people, not so much.”
… WTF is ‘coercion through fraud’?
Seriously, the definition of coerce according to dictionary.com is:
So in other words… coercing already involves violence or at least the threat of it according to dictionary.com.
Re: coercion through fraud
Not a lawyer, just speculating here:
According to your citation, coercion includes "Compel by … authority". Perhaps coercion through fraud is the compulsion through fraudulent authority. For example, suppose a man walks up to a bystander, claims to be an undercover cop in plainclothes, and demands assistance, and the bystander assists because of the perception that this is compulsion by a police officer. (Assume that a real cop could lawfully make the same demand and lawfully secure the demanded assistance.) Unknown to the bystander, the man is not a police officer or any other authority figure. Hence, he has compelled cooperation through fraudulent authority (the willful misrepresentation that he had real authority, when he has none), which would be "coercion through fraud."
Re: Re: coercion through fraud
That was my reading too… but is such behavior a violent offense? Or is it just the gateway to something that could be a violent offense?
Re: Re: Re: coercion through fraud
That’s the entire point of the article, that coercion by fraud is not inherently violent but under the law could be a ‘violent crime’ under statute, which was the issue the supreme court had with the prior vague language, and all this bill does is codify crimes that are not inherently violent (but could be) as violent crimes under statute.
Re: Re: Re:2 Violent crimes under statute
What would be the purpose of making a crime that isn’t inherently violent into a violent crime under statute?
This smacks of the same logic as making crimes against police officers into hate crimes. Are agents of the state a minority discriminated against by…agents of the state?
Re: Re: Re:3 Violent crimes under statute
Well, since your reading comprehension is so bad, let me quote the article:
>> The “crime of violence” needed to necessitate the removal of a lawful permanent alien was too vague.
The supreme court had ruled the standard in statute was too vague, and included non-violent offenses. Without knowing more because the ruling by the supreme court is not obviously linked, while it seems likely it came up after Trump’s deport everybody policies came into effect, the case may have started during Obama’s tenure. It is unclear.
The response by Congress appears to be to include all the crimes that were included in the overboard wording explicitly in the belief this will fix the issue. This makes sense given the stated anti-immigration policy of the current administration and its stated desire to reduce non-citizens living in the country. This change will make it easy to deport legally residing aliens, not not just illegally residing aliens, for more minor offenses.
Re: Re: Re:4 Justifying deporting legal aliens
Ah, I see, so we’ve moved from deporting violent undocumented migrants to all undocumented migrants to violent legal migrants. That probably includes non-white naturalized citizens.
(I specify non-white given that here in California, we have a lot of undocumented migrants from Ukraine and Russia, a rather pale lot, and none of them are being harassed at all by CBP or ICE. It’s a non issue.)
It’s not about bad reading comprehension, I just wanted someone else to say what I was thinking to confirm that was the logic: We are further legislating racism into policy.
Re: Re: Re:5 Justifying deporting legal aliens
This will continue as long as the Overton Window keeps moving rightwards. The Left needs a big win in November to give you back the missing middle ground.
Re: Re: Re:6 Justifying deporting legal aliens
Which means the election will be tampered with.
Many states are doing nothing about their old and obsolete voting machines, many without a paper trail. I have read statements claiming it is too late now to do anything … they have known about the problems for years, possibly decades. Like a spoiled child, they refuse to accept any responsibility.
Re: Re: Re:7 Justifying deporting legal aliens
They would if the results went against them, but we already knew that.
Re: Re: Re:7 POSSIBLY decades
Techdirt has been writing about this for over 15 years.
HANGING CHADS were in the 2000 US Federal elections. That’s 18 years ago.
POSSIBLY you mean that states have been digging their heads in the sand and giving contracts to Diebold (under whatever name they have now) and ignoring Bruce Schneier and making crap ballots since then and now and past now.
E
Re: Re:
Dictionary.com primarily aggregates standard English dictionary references. But these dictionaries will always lag behind the evolving usage, and generally are poor at documenting less common usages that might exist for specific professions, like law.
That said, intimidation can occur via fraud and not involve violence – the threat “I will ruin you” generally doesn’t involve physical violence but rather the destruction of a person’s personal or professional life. And as noted, Authority can be established fraudulently, also allowing for coercion without physical violence being the motivator (though it might have a violent aspect).
That is why the quote make a distinction between coercion via violence, clearly a crime of violence, and coercion via fraud, which could be a non-violent crime and should not be automatically defined as a crime of violence.
On car chases as violent crimes
It may be worth mentioning that the Supreme Court has explicitly ruled in favor of counting car chases as “violent”, because they have a high risk of injury to innocents. The case is Sykes v. United States, 564 U. S. 1 (2011).
Re: On car chases as violent crimes
I’m guessing that only a small minority of car chases do not carry a risk to life or property.
Re: Re: On car chases as violent crimes
The problem arises though that sometimes people are charged with fleeing in a car simply because they wanted to pull over in a more well lit, more populated area, or less busy street. Like, they see the cop, pull to the furthest right lane, put on their turn signal, slow down, but don’t actually pull over and stop for another couple blocks or something and then get charged with fleeing.
And then because fleeing is classified as violent, it doesn’t matter if the “car chase” was actually very slow and orderly. They’d still get slapped with “committed a violent crime”.
Re: Re: Re: On car chases as violent crimes
Yes, especially when Mr. Play A. Cop is out on patrol.
The police even go on the news and tell you that if you suspect the flashing lights are not a real cop that you should drive normal to your nearest police station, fire station or a well lit public area.
Re: Re: Risk to life or property
In that case, cars are by definition violent. So is a large amount of mining, farming and industrial processing.
Re: Re: On car chases as violent crimes
What about drunkin Santa riding his lawnmower down the local neighborhood drive on Christmas Eve?
Burglary
That sounds like the California definition of burglary is pretty messed up. Much as Congress has done with this bill (adding non-violent acts to "crimes of violence" instead of amending the Immigration Act to add selected non-violent crimes as deportable offenses), the state legislature apparently wanted to reuse the burglary crime to criminalize shady salesmen instead of defining appropriate fraud crimes tailored to the problem.
True, but there is a risk, possibly a substantial one, that the rightful owners will walk in on the burglar during the act. If they do, violence might well result, especially if we look at states where burglars and/or homeowners are frequently armed. Thus, it seems reasonable that actual burglary of a structure be considered a crime of violence. ("California burglary" covering shady salesmen is just silly though.)
Re: Burglary
The problem with that is that if a homeowner walks in the crime is no longer Burglary, it becomes a Robbery. The two words have different and specific definitions. By this reasoning they can write you up for speeding if they pulled you over because one of your taillights was out. "Oh he might have been speeding so we are just going to tack that on cause it is a more serious offense."
Re: Re: Burglary
It’s not actually true, unless the burglar uses fear or threats to take things. Merely being observed isn’t enough. (Doesn’t change your point anyway; violence or threats already make it a "violent crime", no law changes needed.)
Re: Burglary
That was the standard the old law used – the unconstitutionally vague law. That is almost the exact Schrodinger’s violence situation that the Supreme Court said the law couldn’t be predicated on. The crime of Burglary is not inherently a violent one. The potential for violence exists, but in fact the goal of burglary normally is to avoid interactions that would lead to violence.
Re: Burglary
I think the risk of burglary-turning-violent is based on the actions of the burglar. If he just flees it’s still just a burglary. If he fights back, then it’s burglary and assault. If he tries to rob the occupant, then it escalates to robbery.
If the occupant shoots him, it’s deadly assault or even murder, but potentially justified as self-defense.
We need to add Republican bills to the thought crimes list.
Re: Re:
Eh, they’re not all bad, it’s just that some are massively awful. Don’t get caught up in the partisan pattycake game.
Classification creep
Given crimes can be instantly classified as drug related for asset forfeiture purposes.
They can also be instantly classified as sex crimes if the DoJ agent wants to get the suspect on the sex offender list, or have cause to prosecute the hosting website.
They can also be classified as crimes that cross borders or acts of terror as needed. I’m pretty sure all these would apply to a child’s lemonade stand operating without a vender’s permit, depending on how many lives the DoJ wants to ruin.
Self driving cars can't come soon enough
Once the decision making is out of the hands of the people in the car, then they cannot be held accountable for what the car does. I’m sure there are manual ways to indicate an autonomous vehicle pull over, but of course one cannot presume that the passengers are paying attention.
That does raise the question: how does a self-driving car know that a police car wants it to pull over?
Re: Self driving cars can't come soon enough
It will be as easy for a criminal as for the police to force an automated car to pull over.
Re: Wow
It didn’t raise any such question. You just tried to hijack the topic, that’s all.
In case anyone hasn’t been watching, the new world order has usurped this government. The laws are more quickly becoming draconian and law enforcement is following these dicks without questioning the morality or even logic of these laws. It is becoming preferable to take the free pass out of this country for good reason.
What about California’s laws on evasion. In California, fleeing/evading a police officer is only a criminal offense if you drive recklessly and/or cause an accident.
If you fail to stop for an office, but don’t drive recklessly or cause an accident, in California, that is just a 1-point ticket on your driving.
The Feds cannot force California to elevate that to any kind of criminal offense.
Re: Re:
Yeah — the drafters of this bill should have used “reckless evasion”, for sure: simply put, there are places where it’s simply impossible to pull over immediately upon seeing red-and-blue flashers in the rear view mirror without posing an undue hazard to yourself, the cop, and/or other traffic.
(For law-and-order folks reading this: if you were a cop, would you rather want someone stopped in a travel lane in an Interstate workzone because the work has rendered the shoulders unusable, or them to pull off onto the next available exit ramp and stop there instead, where the risk of crunchy, squishy sounds is far lower? I know what I’d rather have, at least.)
Robert Mueller is law enforcement
“…attempting to elude a law enforcement officer”
If passed, please take Donald Trump away for violating this.
He’s done nothing but elude law enforcement on this, Trump University, Trump Foundation Taxes, etc.
I realize it used to be guilt had to be proven but if merely attempting to do something is now grounds for deportation, please send Donald Trump back to Slovenia. He helped her break immigration rules to come here. She can stay. He can go.
E
Re: Ehud Gavron RANTS AT Donald Trump?
Up there at someone wondering what about self-driving cars in this sitch you wrote:
AND THEN YOU INJECT A RANT AT Donald Trump?
EXPLAIN HOW THAT IS NOT HIJACKING TOPIC.
Sad. Self-contradictory too.
Re: Re: Anonymous coward pretends to be Donald Trump
It’s obvious. You don’t get it. That’s obvious too. You must be the real Donald Trump. Attempting to explain it to you is a waste of time.
No TD readers pander to your narcissism and neither will I.
res ipsa loquitur
E
Re: Donald Trump Committing Crimes
He’s committed quite a few, and has been prosecuted for none of them. Trump alone is an indictment of the rule of law in the United States.
REALLY REALLY need to ask..
Did any of those people Ever get passed 6th grade an a d- in Lawyer school??
I thought lawyers would know how to word things,as well as the Logic behind the words used..
WHITE and dont have perfect ID…the Mex/canada express.
Re: REALLY REALLY need to ask..
No. Nobody ever anywhere got passed 6th grade, unless it was a rumor, in class handed over hand to hand.
Perhaps you meant “get past 6th grade.”
You didn’t.
E
Re: Re: REALLY REALLY need to ask..
passed, NOT in time, Passed as in Graduated
Re: Re: Re: REALLY REALLY need to ask..
PAST is based on TIME..
Re: Re: Re:2 REALLY REALLY need to ask..
And I hope to get PAssed you along the road..
Re: Re: Re:3 REALLY REALLY need to ask..
Truly I’m passed all this.
https://www.dailywritingtips.com/passed-vs-past/
E
Change the law to something unambiguous. In Australia, your visa can be cancelled and you can be deported if you’re convicted of any offence punishable with a jail term, even if you are ultimately not sentenced to jail. Simple and straightforward.
Though the way America is going, this would just lead to more offences being punishable with jail terms.
Re: Re:
Australia has the right idea, as does almost any other country in the world. In every country but America, they actually care about their own country (always) and their own citizens (to varying degrees).
When Obama opened the flood gates of “free money” to Corporate America, they took full advantage, and many established themselves as global powers with the protection of American law and financing from American Taxpayers (low interest rates). Now they are doing their best to shun American in favor of their markets overseas. WItness Nike and the NFL. Their target customers hate Americans, so they market hatred of America.
Just like Techdirt hates Americans. It’s part of a cohesive group of Globalists that use America as a backdrop to market hatred. That’s what Nike sells now, Kapernick Hates American values, the NFL is targeting China and Europe as markets, and hating America is fashionable there. Look at Google, cowtowing to the Chinese and flouting the American Congress.
Just like hating American is fashionable here on Techdirt. Laws that oust foreigners that are staying illegally are only good for Americans. Not many of them here, except for the (literally) mental patients.
Re: Re: Re:
“In every country but America, they actually care about their own country (always) and their own citizens (to varying degrees).”
Even in Somalia?
What about North Korea?
Ok – cool, but you forgot /s
Re: Re: Re: Re:
The North Korean government loves North Korea. No doubt. A lot. They do not encourage their own public heroes to sit while their national anthem plays. They do not market products from their own companies that condemn their own country.
What is it you are trying to express?
Re: Re: Re:2 Re:
America is uniquely so free that American citizens are free to hate America.
The truth of the matter is that they (the America haters) comprise only a tiny fraction of the population, which are (by an large) mostly unaware of political realities or agendas. Yet this tiny fraction is has received a huge megaphone in the form of common cause with globalist corporations and media giants.
It is useful, if you are a global corporation trying to sell outside America, to brand yourself anti-American, just as Nike has recently done. It will make you money, you will look brave to your foreign customers to giving America the finger in public. This is what the Democrats have latched onto, and why they have so much common cause with media, social media, Hollywood media and sports and fashion. Globalist money.
In America, you have this freedom and I have this freedom, but only in America. I would suggest to POTUS that at a minimum, he should encourage Nike to move their manufacturing to the US, or face some serious taxation. That would seem fair recompense for the black eye they are giving the US. Pay for it. Or go live in China, and be subject to their laws and taxes. Or Europe. Go to your customer that you care about, that would be good. In American, we’ll invent some new shoes that are better, no problem. Always have, always will. Go, America Haters, and take your illegal aliens with you. Bye Bye.
Re: Re: Re:3 "free to hate America"
Not so much.
I mean, we are presumably free to express our outrage, yes, but considering just how long it took for journalists to be acquitted regarding the inauguration protest trials, and considering how much our Peerless Leader hates accountability, these rights may not last much longer.
And those of us who grew up in the school system weren’t taught the actual history of the United States and left to judge for ourselves what we feel about this nation. Rather we were taught revisionist history and American Exceptionalism, which is entirely as expansionist and as elitist as the Islamic State. You’d think that if we were truly free, we’d be taught the truth and let to judge for ourselves, perhaps taught ambition to do better, to make the US a more perfect union.
And then when we separated migrant children from their parents, we forced those kids — who had no reason at the time to love the US — to recite the Pledge of Allegiance. That’s not only indoctrination but bad indoctrination. It’s the kind of thing we might have an enemy nation do to show how evil it is.
Right now, we are a police state. Most of us are only free until the Department of Justice takes notice of us, at which point we’re another warm body trapped in the penal system. We have a 100% incarceration rate and a 90% conviction rate for felonies of which anyone is guilty (or everyone, at the average of three times a day).
Those of us who cannot afford legal council are beneath freedoms, including the freedom to resent our nation.
Re: Re: Re:4 "free to hate America"
“These rights may not last much longer” – horseshit, American rights are fine, except in your demented mind.
Children “left to judge for themselves” – stupid and irresponsible. Children need guidance, that’s what parents are for. Ditto for letting them choose their own biological sex orientation. Stupid and negligent.
“We separated migrant children from their parents” – we separated criminal law breakers in the form of illegal border crossers, just as we do to own our criminal citizens. Idiocy. Criminals lose rights, that’s what happens to law-breakers.
“Right now, we are a police state” – Right now, you are locked up in a mental institution. That’s how useful perceptive your opinion is. You advocate that crazy people should bear arms to protect their craziness.
Wacko Dacko, that’s you and the substance of your ideas.
Re: Re: Re:5 "free to hate America"
You advocate that crazy people should bear arms to protect their craziness.
That’s exactly what your Republicans are demanding, Hamilton.
If you’re going to toe the party line for your beloved POTUS at least have the decency to be consistent about it.
Re: Re: Re:6 "free to hate America"
Do don’t mean your definition of crazy. I mean the legal definition of crazy, like locked up in a mental institution.
Different, right?
Re: Re: Re:7 "free to hate America"
I’m sure the corpse shot by a lunatic after he was given access to guns by your Republicans is very assured of that subtle difference.
Re: Re: Re:8 Assurances from a coward
Your assurances, as well as your stupid assertions, are worth NOTHING.
“Your Republicans” – Sorry, they are not owned by US voting citizens.
“given access” – Sorry you really don’t understand anything. No political party granted (or “gave”) “access” to anything.
“guns” – Seriously. Learn the terms. Guns are in your pants. Firearms, pistols, rifles, and cannons… that’s what you want to be discussing.
“corpse shot” – No corpses have been shot
“by a lunatic” – People crazed by the moon?
Dude, get with the times. “Lunatic”, “guns”, “given access”, “by Repulicans”.
You’re just plain crazy.
Or a lunatic.
E
Re: Re: Re:7 "the legal definition of crazy"
Anonymous Coward It sounds like you don’t actually know how mental disorders interact with criminal law. Differently, incidentally than how they interact with gun rights, or the right to liberty (which protects us from confinement in a mental institution).
It also seems you understand neither legal terms nor medical terms for insanity (of which crazy isn’t one), but then again you also can’t seem to grasp the difference between receiving psychiatric treatment and involuntary confinement. Maybe all your information on mental health is from Silver Age comic books?
It’s a wild guess, but maybe try not posting while inebriated?
Re: Re: Re:8 "the legal definition of crazy"
You’re right — you should stop posting while inebriated, or trying to appear erudite when all you’re doing is throwing words at a wall and hoping someone else makes sense of your randomness.
There’s a word for that too, but I’m sure you heard that when you received your diagnosis.
E
Re: Re: Re:9 "the legal definition of crazy"
I understood Uriel’s post just fine.
A lot better than I understand your frequent tantrums.
You seem to frequently confuse "I don’t understand this" and "I don’t see how this is relevant" with "This doesn’t make sense" and "This is irrelevant."
(Remember that time you gave me shit for mentioning Harvey Weinstein in response to another poster bringing up Harvey Weinstein suing the New York Times, presumably because you hadn’t read the news that day and didn’t understand who he was talking about?)
I think you should spend less time lashing out at people for saying things you don’t understand or don’t see as relevant, and more time trying to understand what they’re saying and how it’s relevant.
Uriel’s not a troll. He’s a regular, and he posts in good faith.
Like any of us (the trolls notwithstanding), sometimes he’s right and sometimes he’s wrong, but he makes thoughtful arguments and has earned the benefit of the doubt. If you can’t understand something that he’s saying, consider politely asking for clarification instead of insulting him because you don’t understand.
Re: Re: Re:4 "free to hate America"
Apparently pointing out hypocrisy of those in power is now considered to be “hating America”.
Oh yeah – and it also means that you are the hater – lol
Re: Re: Re:5 Hating AMERICA is not the same as Hating REPUBLICANs
“Apparently pointing out hypocrisy of those in power is now considered to be “hating America”.
No, pointing out hypocrisy of those in power (THE REPUBLICAN PARTY) is not hating America. It’s hating the DESTRUCTION of America.
Subtle, I know. Idiot in charge, and the ENTIRE REPUBLICAN PARTY BACKING HIM UP NO MATTER HOW HE DESTROYS AMERICA.
Yeah, speak out. You’re being heard. Not by any so-called “represenatives”.
E
Re: Re: Re:3 Re:
“he should encourage Nike to move their manufacturing to the US, or face some serious taxation.”
Sorry Comrade, but that is not the way it works here in America.
Re: Re: Re:2 Re:
You claimed that “In every country but America, they actually care about their own country (always) and their own citizens (to varying degrees).”
NK & Somalia loves their citizens? What about To varying degrees you claimed .. what does this mean? Does it mean that it is ok to murder citizens who do not lick the great emperor’s feet?
The sports thing is trivial, but telling that you think it is not.
Re: Re: Re:
Nice try, Hamilton.
Have a SESTA vote.
Re: Re: Re:
Whoa, that’s some grade-A racism dog-whistling there, Hamilton. Good grief, where to start?
Australia has the right idea, as does almost any other country in the world. In every country but America, they actually care about their own country (always) and their own citizens* (to varying degrees).
White people. Native people, not so much.
When Obama opened the flood gates of “free money” to Corporate America
Bush administration. Learn something, know something.
Just like Techdirt hates Americans.
Mike and the majority of staff members are American. Do they hate themselves and each other or does “American” only mean “bug-eyed right-wingers?”
It’s part of a cohesive group of Globalists that use America as a backdrop to market hatred. That’s what Nike sells now, Kapernick Hates American values,
Where “American values” means “police killing black people.”
the NFL is targeting China and Europe as markets, and hating America is fashionable there.
Which is why they’re wearing Western clothes, doing business in English, and selling to Western markets, right?
Look at Google, cowtowing to the Chinese and flouting the American Congress.
Mike has called Google out for kowtowing to Chinese government censorship. Flouting Congress? How?
Re: Let's not take Australia as an example of refugee policy
Manus Island: Australia abandons refugees to a life of uncertainty and peril.
https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2018/02/manus-island-australia-abandons-refugees-to-a-life-of-uncertainty-and-peril/
I have no problem with the car stuff
Just driving legally is a tacit agreement that you might kill an idiot toddler or certainly animals. Driving is inherently violent. Add eluding police to that and it only becomes more so.