"Stop calling groups of voters stupid”

First topic message reminder :

To paraphrase the movie publicists, if you follow only one Twitter account in 2017, make it this one.
Chris Arnade is a former Wall Street bond trader who observed first-hand how the financial industry has screwed ordinary people. He now travels the US chronicling the stories of struggling people in left-behind communities.

 Follow
Chris Arnade @Chris_arnade
[ltr]1. Let's hope 17 is year political writers/pundits stop calling groups of voters stupid or idiots. & understand how deeply offensive that is[/ltr]





1:39 PM - 2 Jan 2017

2 Jan
Chris Arnade @Chris_arnade





[ltr]5. Disagree on substance & outcomes. On how their views impact country as a whole. Don't disagree based on ugly characterization of a group[/ltr]

 Follow
Chris Arnade @Chris_arnade
[ltr]6. One of my biggest disappointments of last year was seeing progressives (my group!) dismiss entire groups of voters as lesser.[/ltr]





2:02 PM - 2 Jan 2017

 Follow
Chris Arnade @Chris_arnade
[ltr]7. Denying socio- eco context to entire groups. Imo going against everything progressives are supposed to be about: understanding ALL people[/ltr]





2:06 PM - 2 Jan 2017

Yes. I’ve seen and heard too many nominal progressives doing just this. The first step to winning majorities in coming elections is to stop doing it.

http://hurryupharry.org/2017/01/02/stop-calling-groups-of-voters-stupid/

Original Quill wrote:

Thorin wrote:So when you do not get your way, you are basically calling for a revolution in California.

This is not about me.  We've recently had to close the whole website because of the tendency of certain people toward personal insults.  I hope you aren't one of those.

There's a lot of work to do, what with an imbecile coming in and no one capable of teaching him anything.  This is a policy/issue discussion workplace.  Get to work.

The above has nothing to do with the points you raised in regards to making Californian independent via a revolution. You can attempt to change the subject all you like about me, but this is on views you have said.

Thorin wrote:It completely matters when this was only in regard to chemical weapons. It has nothing on the shootings and bombings of civilian. Hence the Bill is flawed and would have been ineffective against the mass killings that have gone on in Syria. You have actually missed many of them, skipped about 75% of them. I do not also bow down to orders from posters. Either engage in the debate, or don't. That is up to you, but it shows you are clearly emotive to make demands of me.

The bill was a proposal, not a law. Republicans didn't want to talk about anything that would save Syrians from disaster. They got what they asked for.

Original Quill wrote:

Thorin wrote:It completely matters when this was only in regard to chemical weapons. It has nothing on the shootings and bombings of civilian. Hence the Bill is flawed and would have been ineffective against the mass killings that have gone on in Syria. You have actually missed many of them, skipped about 75% of them. I do not also bow down to orders from posters. Either engage in the debate, or don't. That is up to you, but it shows you are clearly emotive to make demands of me.

The bill was a proposal, not a law.  Republicans didn't want to talk about anything that would save Syrians from disaster.  They got what they asked for.

The Bill as seen was ineffective.

Thorin wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

This is not about me.  We've recently had to close the whole website because of the tendency of certain people toward personal insults.  I hope you aren't one of those.

There's a lot of work to do, what with an imbecile coming in and no one capable of teaching him anything.  This is a policy/issue discussion workplace.  Get to work.

The above has nothing to do with the points you raised in regards to making Californian independent via a revolution. You can attempt to change the subject all you like about me, but this is on views you have said.

No...it's a reminder to keep your nose on the point. It's short...shorter than the missive that provoked it. Again, stick to the subject.

Thorin wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

The bill was a proposal, not a law.  Republicans didn't want to talk about anything that would save Syrians from disaster.  They got what they asked for.

The Bill as seen was ineffective.

So, the Republicans should have said that. Instead, they went on vacation, swimming nude in the Dead Sea. They were obstructionists...they had no intention of saving Syrian children, or anyone else.

Original Quill wrote:

Thorin wrote:

The above has nothing to do with the points you raised in regards to making Californian independent via a revolution. You can attempt to change the subject all you like about me, but this is on views you have said.

No...it's a reminder to keep your nose on the point.  It's short...shorter than the missive that provoked it.  Again, stick to the subject.

You are again deflecting from the points of views you made, that I countered. You are making this deliberately circular to avoid answering. No problem, but all can seen, you have back tracked throughout and evaded.
Fine by me. Again best you learn to not make demands, as you will be sorely disappointed.

eddie wrote:Perhaps "stupid" is the wrong word. Perhaps "misguided" is more apt.

perhaps fed up with the corrupt DNC and clinton klan would be more apt.

Original Quill wrote:

Thorin wrote:

The Bill as seen was ineffective.

So, the Republicans should have said that.  Instead, they went on vacation, swimming nude in the Dead Sea.  They were obstructionists...they had no intention of saving Syrian children, or anyone else.

As far as I am concerned both the Democrats and Republicans are fault for their inaction over this, but he buck stops first and foremost with the US President. For trying to appease Iran and Putin over this.

Thorin wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

This is not about me.  We've recently had to close the whole website because of the tendency of certain people toward personal insults.  I hope you aren't one of those.

There's a lot of work to do, what with an imbecile coming in and no one capable of teaching him anything.  This is a policy/issue discussion workplace.  Get to work.

The above has nothing to do with the points you raised in regards to making Californian independent via a revolution. You can attempt to change the subject all you like about me, but this is on views you have said.

Why talk about it? I told you that I would be willing to forgo the plan if the rest of liberal America wants to indulge in the kind of crap that Republicans and southerners engage in.

Just because I am a patient man doesn't mean I don't dream of utopia now and then.

Original Quill wrote:

Ben Reilly wrote:I agree that it doesn't help to call people stupid, but on the other hand, I don't really care how they feel because they hurl names at the left constantly. They should at least be able to take what they dish out.

My gawd...you took the words right out of my mouth.  I don't care...I'm not trying to be constructive in any way.  It's not just that the pussy-grabbers hurl names...it's that you can't care when you are the only one who cares.  

America has been reduced to the level of the McConnell-Boehner doctrine: root for America to fail as long as the other side is in power.  If you try to rise above that level, you're just being a loser.

that does seem to be the snowflakes mantra these days.

Original Quill wrote:

Thorin wrote:Look where inaction has gotten the US over Syria?

Who the fook gives a damn about Syria?  It's half a world away, and what goes on there is none of our business.  For sure, America is not going to stand for another foreign adventure that allows generals to test their toys, and capitalists to make their money, on nothing but an enterprise of killing babies.  My taxes won't go to it, and our children won't enlist for it.  We are at the end of America's limits.

Send them a stern letter and be done with it.

so you are an isolationist. Well whilst you curl up in a ball, russia and china are expanding into the vacuum.

Original Quill wrote:

Thorin wrote:

The above has nothing to do with the points you raised in regards to making Californian independent via a revolution. You can attempt to change the subject all you like about me, but this is on views you have said.

Why talk about it?  I told you that I would be willing to forgo the plan if the rest of liberal America wants to indulge in the kind of crap that Republicans and southerners engage in.

Just because I am a patient man doesn't mean I don't dream of utopia now and then.

So you cannot live alongside people who are not Liberals, which would also include for example many Muslims.
Seems you want to create an apartheid state based on political beliefs.

Thorin wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

There's nothing wrong with liberals that a little divorce wouldn't fix.  Frankly, I live in a state that is the 5th largest economy in the world, having recently surpassed France.  I don't need the south or the midwest.  Other than the northeast, I have no inclination to talk to the rest of the country, let alone insult them.

Now that's my kind of surgery.  However, I am a patient man and if others want to waste time, I'll indulge them.  But America has to fail before she can succeed...and fail big time.  We must purge the underlying racism of America, the hooliganism of the RW, stop the war mongering...and a thousand other things that are too depressing to mention.

Vive le California libre!

So when you do not get your way, you are basically calling for a revolution in California. So quite a selfish outlook and basing this off very little you have done, but the efforts of millions of others. Thus not being a proponent of democratic values. You deal with racism by tackling the actual problem by challenging such hate speech. As the article states, not to castigate people just because they were groomed and conditioned to vote for Trump. What the country needs now is unity and to weather out the storm of the next 4 years.

if California seceded then it would more or less ensure a republican usa for some time.
Not sure it could make a proper go of it alone though.

Thorin wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

So, the Republicans should have said that.  Instead, they went on vacation, swimming nude in the Dead Sea.  They were obstructionists...they had no intention of saving Syrian children, or anyone else.

As far as I am concerned both the Democrats and Republicans are fault for their inaction over this, but he buck stops first and foremost with the US President. For trying to appease Iran and Putin over this.

At the time, and ever since, Republicans have been in charge of Congress. Republicans, being in charge of the rules, have followed the Hasert Rule:

Wiki wrote:The Hastert Rule, also known as the "majority of the majority"rule, is an informal governing principle used in the United States by Republican Speakers of the House of Representatives since the mid-1990s to maintain their speakerships and limit the power of the minority party to bring bills up for a vote on the floor ...

The proposed war bill was proposed by the Executive. Using the Hasert Rule, Republicans never even considered it. It's futile to say that it was imperfect, when it was never brought up.

Original Quill wrote:

Thorin wrote:

As far as I am concerned both the Democrats and Republicans are fault for their inaction over this, but he buck stops first and foremost with the US President. For trying to appease Iran and Putin over this.

At the time, and ever since, Republicans have been in charge of Congress.  Republicans, being in charge of the rules, have followed the Hasert Rule:

Wiki wrote:The Hastert Rule, also known as the "majority of the majority"rule, is an informal governing principle used in the United States by Republican Speakers of the House of Representatives since the mid-1990s to maintain their speakerships and limit the power of the minority party to bring bills up for a vote on the floor ...

The proposed war bill was proposed by the Executive.  Using the Hasert Rule, Republicans never even considered it.  It's futile to say that it was imperfect, when it was never brought up.

The Bill again was ineffective. As it only called to deal with chemical weapon facilities and this was proposed by Obama. Not the Republicans. Hence why it was ditched by the Republicans I guess for being next to useless

The Devil, You Know wrote:

Thorin wrote:

So when you do not get your way, you are basically calling for a revolution in California. So quite a selfish outlook and basing this off very little you have done, but the efforts of millions of others. Thus not being a proponent of democratic values. You deal with racism by tackling the actual problem by challenging such hate speech. As the article states, not to castigate people just because they were groomed and conditioned to vote for Trump. What the country needs now is unity and to weather out the storm of the next 4 years.

if California seceded then it would more or less ensure a republican usa for some time.
Not sure it could make a proper go of it alone though.

How do you figure that?
Based off one US election?
The Republicans are too right wing and back poor religious beliefs into law
I would not wish that on my worst enemy

The Devil, You Know wrote:

Thorin wrote:

So when you do not get your way, you are basically calling for a revolution in California. So quite a selfish outlook and basing this off very little you have done, but the efforts of millions of others. Thus not being a proponent of democratic values. You deal with racism by tackling the actual problem by challenging such hate speech. As the article states, not to castigate people just because they were groomed and conditioned to vote for Trump. What the country needs now is unity and to weather out the storm of the next 4 years.

if California seceded then it would more or less ensure a republican usa for some time.
Not sure it could make a proper go of it alone though.

But we Californians wouldn't care about the US. The proposal I have put forth calls for a new nation known as the Pacific States of America. It would be based around the state of California, but would also include Arizona, Oregon, Washington, Alaska and Hawai'i. With best wishes, we would invite Baja California Norte and Sud, as well as B.C. and the Northwest/Yukon Territories to join us, as those parts would not be able to survive economically without California.

Original Quill wrote:

The Devil, You Know wrote:

if California seceded then it would more or less ensure a republican usa for some time.
Not sure it could make a proper go of it alone though.

But we Californians wouldn't care about the US.  The proposal I have put forth calls for a new nation known as the Pacific States of America.  It would be based around the state of California, but would also include Arizona, Oregon, Washington, Alaska and Hawai'i.  With best wishes, we would invite Baja California Norte and Sud, as well as B.C. and the Northwest/Yukon Territories to join us, as those parts would not be able to survive economically without California.

Again, you seem to think you speak for all Californians and now other US states.
Have you actually asked all the people of these states whether they want to join your undemocratic crusade?

Thorin wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Why talk about it?  I told you that I would be willing to forgo the plan if the rest of liberal America wants to indulge in the kind of crap that Republicans and southerners engage in.

Just because I am a patient man doesn't mean I don't dream of utopia now and then.

So you cannot live alongside people who are not Liberals, which would also include for example many Muslims.
Seems you want to create an apartheid state based on political beliefs.

There is no theocracy associated with California. This is completely different from the theocracy/democracy dilemma of Israel and the middle east. It's purely economic survival.

It is well that California has a certain homogeneity around liberalism among its citizens. But the point is that the US can no longer survive with the kind of divisiveness that Donald Trump has built his America around. At least a separate California is the answer for those in California.

It's a matter of survival. America was born divided around slavery. All we have been able to do since 1860 is exacerbate the problem. So far from moving away from that, Trump builds upon it...tossing in Mexicans as rapists, and Muslims as criminals or blacks.

Take a realistic look at the dregs of the US that are left. Now...doesn't an independent California look like heaven?

Original Quill wrote:

Thorin wrote:

So you cannot live alongside people who are not Liberals, which would also include for example many Muslims.
Seems you want to create an apartheid state based on political beliefs.

There is no theocracy associated with California.  This is completely different from the theocracy/democracy dilemma of Israel and the middle east.  It's purely economic survival.

It is well that California has a certain homogeneity around liberalism among its citizens.  But the point is that the US can no longer survive with the kind of divisiveness that Donald Trump has built his America around.  At least a separate California is the answer for those in California.

It's a matter of survival.  America was born divided around slavery.  All we have been able to do since 1860 is exacerbate the problem.  So far from moving away from that, Trump builds upon it...tossing in Mexicans as rapists, and Muslims as criminals or blacks.

Take a realistic look at the dregs of the US that are left.  Now...doesn't an independent California look like heaven?

You stated you want to set up shop with people of liberal values. That would discount many religious people, including many Muslims, communists, anarchists, the Far Right etc. All so you can live in an imaginary utopia, that within a generation could easily change views held by the next generation. Hence you are trying to create a falsehood. Not one that is viable but excludes people by criminalizing their beliefs. There is no such laws that criminalize beliefs, except found in some Muslim majority countries.

The views you are proposing are illiberal.

So it has nothing to do with survival. If survival was on the cards Liberalism would go out of the window and each would look out for themselves, even among Liberals.

Thorin wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

But we Californians wouldn't care about the US.  The proposal I have put forth calls for a new nation known as the Pacific States of America.  It would be based around the state of California, but would also include Arizona, Oregon, Washington, Alaska and Hawai'i.  With best wishes, we would invite Baja California Norte and Sud, as well as B.C. and the Northwest/Yukon Territories to join us, as those parts would not be able to survive economically without California.

Again, you seem to think you speak for all Californians and now other US states.
Have you actually asked all the people of these states whether they want to join your undemocratic crusade?

Well of course others would have to agree.  I'm just the designer...others have to buy.  

But a good idea it is...and California fortuitously has a the most liberal base of any state in the US.  More importantly, it has homogeneity...and a good heart.  We don't build our hopes on calling others rapists and terrorists.  We could restart the idea that was started in the 18th-century:

A. Lincoln wrote:Four score and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this continent, a new nation, conceived in Liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.

As I've said, the civil war never decided anything.  The Republican Party, once proud defender of equality, has putrefied into Donald Trump.  The Democrats have been relatively feckless all along. Only Californians have stood tall among the rest who peep about to find themselves dishonorable graves.

I ask again...doesn't an independent California look pretty good?

Original Quill wrote:

Well of course others would have to agree.  I'm just the designer...others have to buy.  

But a good idea it is...and California fortuitously has a the most liberal base of any state in the US.  More importantly, it has homogeneity...and a good heart.  We don't build our hopes on calling others rapists and terrorists.  We could restart the idea that was started in the 18th-century:

A. Lincoln wrote:Four score and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this continent, a new nation, conceived in Liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.

As I've said, the civil war never decided anything.  The Republican Party, once proud defender of equality, putrefied into Donald Trump.  The Democrats have been relatively feckless.

I ask again...doesn't an independent California look pretty good?

A poor designer at that. Which excludes people based on beliefs.
No different from any religious theocracy or Apartheid system.
You are basically denying entry into your Utopia world, based on beliefs held.
Thus you are essentially criminalizing beliefs.
That is being illiberal and against freedom of expression.

Thorin wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Well of course others would have to agree.  I'm just the designer...others have to buy.  

But a good idea it is...and California fortuitously has a the most liberal base of any state in the US.  More importantly, it has homogeneity...and a good heart.  We don't build our hopes on calling others rapists and terrorists.  We could restart the idea that was started in the 18th-century:

**Gettysburg address**

As I've said, the civil war never decided anything.  The Republican Party, once proud defender of equality, putrefied into Donald Trump.  The Democrats have been relatively feckless.

I ask again...doesn't an independent California look pretty good?

A poor designer at that. Which excludes people based on beliefs.
No different from any religious theocracy or Apartheid system.
You are basically denying entry into your Utopia world, based on beliefs held.
Thus you are essentially criminalizing beliefs.
That is being illiberal and against freedom of expression.

Beliefs of racism, bigotry, and war mongering are not exactly desirable.  If you are going to exclude anyone, why not exclude the bad guys?  We do it with prisons all the time.  When someone is adjudicated distasteful and undesirable, we set him apart, exile him, send him away.

Besides, we are not sending them away.  The bad guys are self-selecting themselves, and are willing to live in that other world.  The pussy-grabbers wouldn't be happy in California.

It's an idea that makes sense.  California is the only state that has gone forward with a clear head and a critical mind.  It is the 5th-largest economy in the world.  In other words, we could survive and we are like minded.  The US should be so lucky.

Original Quill wrote:

Thorin wrote:
No different from any religious theocracy or Apartheid system.
You are basically denying entry into your Utopia world, based on beliefs held.
Thus you are essentially criminalizing beliefs.
That is being illiberal and against freedom of expression.

Beliefs of racism, bigotry, and war mongering are not exactly desirable.  If you are going to exclude anyone, why not exclude the bad guys.  We do it with prisons all the time.  When someone is adjudicated distasteful and undesirable, we set him apart, exile him, send him away.

Besides, we are not sending them away.  The bad guys are self-selecting themselves, and are willing to live in that other world.  The pussy-grabbers wouldn't be happy in California.

It's an idea that makes sense.  California is the only state that has gone forward with a clear head and a critical mind.  It is the 5th-largest economy in the world.  In other words, we could survive and we are like minded.  The US should be so lucky.

Many Muslims hate Jews and homosexuals
So that would exclude them as well as many Christians in your apartheid nations.
You say bad guys, but who are the bad guys?
Anyone that excludes people based on beliefs, is a bad by default. As where do you want to draw the line on what you decide is bad?

Adultery?

Jerking off?

Gentle spanking?

Picking your nose?

Like I say, you are attempting to criminalize beliefs and deny people access to your barbaric authoritarian nation system

Thorin wrote:Like I say, you are attempting to criminalize beliefs and deny people access to your barbaric authoritarian nation system

Most of the beliefs of the pussy-grabbers are criminal already.  And unconstitutional.  As I say, the people who voted for Trump, with all that he said, have self-selected themselves for bigotry and even criminality already.

So far from pulling them down, we are asking to be allowed to rise up ourselves without even waking them from their naps.  Now that they have self-selected themselves for the lives they want to live, why should we be pulled down to their level. Talk about coerced beliefs.

They would not be happy here, believe me.  They like South Carolina, where cops can kill blacks.  They like Florida, where even white citizens can kill blacks.  They like Georgia, Alabama, Mississippi, and Louisiana, not to mention Iowa, Missouri, North Carolina and Wisconsin.  We don't care about those places and the people within them!  Let them go their way, po souls.

Besides, we are not imposing a litmus test for living in California.  They can immigrate, just like anyone else.  But they should know...we have  staffed our immigration department with Mexicans, however.  

Original Quill wrote:

Thorin wrote:Like I say, you are attempting to criminalize beliefs and deny people access to your barbaric authoritarian nation system

Most of the beliefs of the pussy-grabbers are criminal already.  And unconstitutional.  As I say, the people who voted for Trump, with all that he said, have self-selected themselves for criminality already.

So far from pulling them down, we are asking to be allowed to rise up without even waking them from their naps.  The would not be happy here, believe me.  They like South Carolina, where cops can kill blacks.  They like Florida, where even white citizens can kill blacks.  They like Georgia, Alabama, Mississippi, and Louisiana, not to mention Iowa, Missouri, North Carolina and Wisconsin.  We don't care about those places and the people within them!  Let them go their way, po souls.

Besides, we are not imposing a litmus test for living in California.  They can immigrate, just like anyone else.  But they should know...we have  staffed our immigration department with Mexicans, however.  

Okay show me any US law that states its a crime to have a belief?

Lets start with your first falsehood before we continue.

Thorin wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Most of the beliefs of the pussy-grabbers are criminal already.  And unconstitutional.  As I say, the people who voted for Trump, with all that he said, have self-selected themselves for criminality already.

So far from pulling them down, we are asking to be allowed to rise up without even waking them from their naps.  The would not be happy here, believe me.  They like South Carolina, where cops can kill blacks.  They like Florida, where even white citizens can kill blacks.  They like Georgia, Alabama, Mississippi, and Louisiana, not to mention Iowa, Missouri, North Carolina and Wisconsin.  We don't care about those places and the people within them!  Let them go their way, po souls.

Besides, we are not imposing a litmus test for living in California.  They can immigrate, just like anyone else.  But they should know...we have  staffed our immigration department with Mexicans, however.  

Okay show me any US law that states its a crime to have a belief?

Lets start with your first falsehood before we continue.

It's not the beliefs. It's the actions predicated on those beliefs.

I think the brown shirt tactics employed by Trump and his supporters at his rallies are an adequate demonstration of what we can expect from them. California just want's to live a cleaner life than that.

Original Quill wrote:

Thorin wrote:

Okay show me any US law that states its a crime to have a belief?

Lets start with your first falsehood before we continue.

It's not the beliefs.  It's the actions predicated on those beliefs.

I think the brown shirt tactics employed by Trump and his supporters at his rallies are an adequate demonstration of what we can expect from them.  California just want's to live a cleaner life than that.

So no law then.
You are making people guilty based off a belief that some will go on to commit acts of hate.
You sound just like those who want to deny Muslims based off terrorism by some of them.
Not all who hold such poor beliefs, commit acts of hate
So again you want to deny people based off nothing more than a fear some might commit crime.
The KKK would be loving your reasoning here to deny African Americans based off such a poor unfounded methodology.

Thorin wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

It's not the beliefs.  It's the actions predicated on those beliefs.

I think the brown shirt tactics employed by Trump and his supporters at his rallies are an adequate demonstration of what we can expect from them.  California just want's to live a cleaner life than that.

So no law then.

Assault and battery is not a law??

Original Quill wrote:

Thorin wrote:

So no law then.

Assault and battery is not a law??

How is a belief held, assault or a battery?

This thread is so interesting and I have followed it with interest (got nowt to add).

As an outsider you both made some great points early on. Great debate guys.

eddie wrote:This thread is so interesting and I have followed it with interest (got nowt to add).

As an outsider you both made some great points early on. Great debate guys.

Thank you

Quill is very intelligent and I see more his frustration at the present situation with Trump winning. As to the views he is making. I sense they are not his real views. Hence why emotions can cloud our thinking when we are pissed at something we have to live with. Well he has too live with this sadly and I do not. I certainly would not wish Trump on anyone. So I can at least sympathize to his issue here, even though not agree with his solution

Thorin wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Assault and battery is not a law??

How is a belief held, assault or a battery?

Both assault and battery are laws prohibiting the actions denoted:

Free Dictionary wrote:Two separate offenses against the person that when used in one expression may be defined as any unlawful and unpermitted touching of another. Assault is an act that creates an apprehension in another of an imminent, harmful, or offensive contact. The act consists of a threat of harm accompanied by an apparent, present ability to carry out the threat. Battery is a harmful or offensive touching of another.

The main distinction between the two offenses is the existence or nonexistence of a touching or contact. While contact is an essential element of battery, there must be an absence of contact for assault. Sometimes assault is defined loosely to include battery.

Beliefs yield intentions:

Free Dictionary wrote:Intent is an essential element of both offenses. Generally, it is only necessary for the defendant to have an intent to do the act that causes the harm. In other words, the act must be done voluntarily. Although an intent to harm the victim is likely to exist, it is not a required element of either offense. There is an exception to this rule for the attempted battery type of criminal assault. If a defendant who commits this crime does not have an intent to harm the victim, the individual cannot be guilty of the offense.

Beliefs in racism, bullying and ethnic distinctions lead to a desire to commit assault and even battery. We saw several instances of this during Trump's rallies.

eddie wrote:Perhaps "stupid" is the wrong word. Perhaps "misguided" is more apt.

That depends on whether you agree with them or not. They're not misguided if they know what they're voting for and stand by their decision.

Raggamuffin wrote:

eddie wrote:Perhaps "stupid" is the wrong word. Perhaps "misguided" is more apt.

That depends on whether you agree with them or not. They're not misguided if they know what they're voting for and stand by their decision.

How can you know what you are voting for, when they have not even been in office?
Trump has backtracked on just about every claim he made.
I think this is a fine example of not being misguided but extremely gullible to bullshit.

Original Quill wrote:

Thorin wrote:

How is a belief held, assault or a battery?

Both assault and battery are laws prohibiting the actions denoted:

Free Dictionary wrote:Two separate offenses against the person that when used in one expression may be defined as any unlawful and unpermitted touching of another. Assault is an act that creates an apprehension in another of an imminent, harmful, or offensive contact. The act consists of a threat of harm accompanied by an apparent, present ability to carry out the threat. Battery is a harmful or offensive touching of another.

The main distinction between the two offenses is the existence or nonexistence of a touching or contact. While contact is an essential element of battery, there must be an absence of contact for assault. Sometimes assault is defined loosely to include battery.

Beliefs yield intentions:

Free Dictionary wrote:Intent is an essential element of both offenses. Generally, it is only necessary for the defendant to have an intent to do the act that causes the harm. In other words, the act must be done voluntarily. Although an intent to harm the victim is likely to exist, it is not a required element of either offense. There is an exception to this rule for the attempted battery type of criminal assault. If a defendant who commits this crime does not have an intent to harm the victim, the individual cannot be guilty of the offense.

Beliefs in racism, bullying and ethnic distinctions lead to a desire to commit assault and even battery.  We saw several instances of this during Trump's rallies.

Sorry but now I am laughing

So again your premise is based on how sometimes it can lead to assault.
I agree it can, but does that mean everyone that holds racists beliefs will commit assualt?
No
So your methodology based on Islamic martyrdom and Jihadism, means you would deny Muslims, based on your belief it will lead them to terrorism
Again its not a crime to hold a belief and you can show nothing that shows it is a assault or battery.
Many things lead to both these crimes.
It would also mean you would have to discount everyone in case they committed a crime of passion

Do you want to rethink your flawed reasoning?
Or watch me continue to tear holes in it?

Thorin wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

That depends on whether you agree with them or not. They're not misguided if they know what they're voting for and stand by their decision.

How can you know what you are voting for, when they have not even been in office?
Trump has backtracked on just about every claim he made.
I think this is a fine example of not being misguided but extremely gullible to bullshit.

You could say that about anyone who votes, in which case anyone who votes at all is "misguided".

Raggamuffin wrote:

Thorin wrote:

How can you know what you are voting for, when they have not even been in office?
Trump has backtracked on just about every claim he made.
I think this is a fine example of not being misguided but extremely gullible to bullshit.

You could say that about anyone who votes, in which case anyone who votes at all is "misguided".

Only in hindsight , after they have served office
They could very well be very apt in their choice

Thorin wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

You could say that about anyone who votes, in which case anyone who votes at all is "misguided".

Only in hindsight , after they have served office
They could very well be very apt in their choice

Well Trump hasn't served office yet has he? It's too soon to say if people were duped or not.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Thorin wrote:

Only in hindsight , after they have served office
They could very well be very apt in their choice

Well Trump hasn't served office yet has he? It's too soon to say if people were duped or not.

No, you can very much say they have been lied to when he has gone back on his words on many issues.

Thorin wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Both assault and battery are laws prohibiting the actions denoted:



Beliefs yield intentions:



Beliefs in racism, bullying and ethnic distinctions lead to a desire to commit assault and even battery.  We saw several instances of this during Trump's rallies.

Sorry but now I am laughing

So again your premise is based on how sometimes it can lead to assault.
I agree it can, but does that mean everyone that holds racists beliefs will commit assualt?
No

So, we are agreed.  In response to your question, causation might, but does not necessarily run both ways.  However, the probabilities go up mightily when it has happened, or when the stakes are great enough.

Thorin wrote:So your methodology based on Islamic martyrdom and Jihadism, means you would deny Muslims, based on your belief it will lead them to terrorism

Didge, why the hell are we back to talking about Muslims again.  I mean, how TF did we get there?  You know very well my issue is not Muslims, but how useless wars that accomplish nothing are wasteful and unproductive.  You are into the Israeli-Palestinian thing, but don't assume that it is core to my thinking.

As far as California is concerned, we are not excluding anyone should we ever be privileged to go it alone.  But since Mexicans will be in charge, and human emotions being what they are, anything is possible.  

Thorin wrote:Again its not a crime to hold a belief and you can show nothing that shows it is a assault or battery.
Many things lead to both these crimes.
It would also mean you would have to discount everyone in case they committed a crime of passion

I'm not talking about crime.  I'm talking about a solution to being around unpleasant people.

Thorin wrote:Do you want to rethink your flawed reasoning?
Or watch me continue to tear holes in it?

About California?  No, I like the idea.

1) We are not agreed. You use risk based on guilt by association, which would  nullify anyone living in your fake kingdom.

2) Its important, that you claim to be Liberal and denounce some people with beliefs at odds with liberalism and back others. Its double standards. Showing you cannot criminalize beliefs.

3) You are excluding people on the right, which would include again, many religious Abrahamic Americans

4) You were talking about crime and now back track

Thorin wrote:1) We are not agreed. You use risk based on guilt by association, which would  nullify anyone living in your fake kingdom.

To do what?

Thorin wrote:2) Its important, that you claim to be Liberal and denounce some people with beliefs at odds with liberalism and back others. Its double standards. Showing you cannot criminalize beliefs.

Me? Denounce? I'm a liberal; we don't denounce. We try to help people.

Thorin wrote:3) You are excluding people on the right, which would include again, many religious Abrahamic Americans

No, we welcome all who can pass muster with our Mexican Migre...excuse me, immigration department employees. They are strict...they think all Americans are rapists and criminals...and judging since pussy-grabber's election, I think they might be onto something.

Thorin wrote:4) You were talking about crime and now back track

No, right now I'm talking about our wonderful new nation, soon to be... I don't envision any exclusivity at all. I envision a divorce, with each going his or her own way.

Should those former US'rs wish to join us, they are welcome. However, with our open-mindedness, they must drop their own intolerant attitudes. Their brown shirt tactics will result in their arrests and expulsion.

1) How can you be a liberal when you exclude people from your imaginary Apartheid kingdom?

2) If you wish to help as a liberal, then you would enlighten, not exclude. That would make you an illiberal and no better than the Far Right.

3) Does not matter what some think. You have to accept them, even the ones who hold poor ill informed beliefs, otherwise you are a liberal.

4) Divorce means inclusion. You sound like the Catholic Church.

Thorin wrote:1) How can you be a liberal when you exclude people from your imaginary Apartheid kingdom?

I don't exclude anyone...that's just you trying to force a round peg into a square hole.

Thorin wrote:2) If you wish to help as a liberal, then you would enlighten, not exclude. That would make you and illiberal and no better than the Far Right.

As I say, I don't exclude.

Thorin wrote:3) Does not matter what some think. You have to accept them, even the ones who hold poor ill informed beliefs, otherwise you are an illiberal.

You are confusing liberalism with tolerance.  Liberals need not be tolerant of everything; they can reject things that are unsavory.  As an example, raised above, liberals can be intolerant of those who commit crimes.  Indeed, they can set them apart in what are known as prisons.

But in a practical sense, to divorce California from the rest of the nation is to leave, not to exclude. We would, and have created another environment which looks down on the racism and bigotry of Trump.

Thorin wrote:4) Divorce means inclusion. You sound like the Catholic Church.

Ah-ha, and therein is your mistake.  Divorce means separation, without regard to inclusion or exclusion.  We would divorce the racism of the US, the war-mongering and the bigotry.  Certain social milieu are breeding grounds for such ills.  By divorcing them, we don't exclude anyone.  We merely drain the swamp (O joy, I always wanted to use that in a sentence.) and introduce the previously infected to a new, healthier environment.  Won't they be pleased...

1) Read back, you did, Republicans, and based on their beliefs

2) Yes you do and by default most religious people as well, as they are not Liberal. They have absolute morals

3) Not confusing anything. You wish to exclude people based on beliefs. That is Totalitarianism. To divorce means you cannot abide with democracy with your fellow Americans. You want to have your own selfish way. That is being illiberal.

4) By divorce you most certainly exclude them from sex. So you are wrong again.

Thorin wrote:1) Read back, you did, Republicans, and based on their beliefs

Did what?  Are we still talking about my utopian dream of a separate California?  I can state unequivocally that there would be a divorce, with no exclusion, but high standards of citizenshap molded by egalitarian principles. There, that's settled.

Thorin wrote:2) Yes you do and by default most religious people as well, as they are not Liberal. They have absolute morals

I would expect California would follow the tradition of religious toleration. There now, that's settled too.

Thorin wrote:3) Not confusing anything. You wish to exclude people based on beliefs. That is Totalitarianism. To divorce means you cannot abide with democracy with your fellow Americans. You want to have your own selfish way. That is being illiberal.

We are not contemplating any arbitrary exclusions. There...flat statement. That's settled.

Thorin wrote:4) By divorce you most certainly exclude them from sex. So you are wrong again.

Definition:

di·vorce
dəˈvôrs/

the legal dissolution of a marriage or other union by a court or other competent body.
"her divorce from her first husband"
synonyms: dissolution, annulment, (official) separation

A divorce relates not to sex necessarily, but to the idea of separation. That's the way I'm using the term, so that settles that.

Seriously, these are all by now semantic arguments you raise.  You know very well what I mean, and no word play will serve your arguments.  

California already has an ideology and even a language of its own, and what I would like to see is just a physical separation of what already exists in spirit and ideology.  Many southern liberals flock to California because they want to be like Californians, not the other way around.  

Very few of the bad ones bring their bile with them.  They are either assimilated or they go home, dissuaded by all the frowns they receive when they bring their racist talk out in the open.  It's the social milieu didge, not the specific beliefs but the unacceptability of racism and general bigotry here.

1) What high standards?
You see there is a measure, which will thus exclude people. Thus apartheid mate.

2) But not political toleration, which would then exclude religious as well.

3) California has no ideology, just people. It was embracing cultures that made it so liberal in thinking. You wish to abandon this by inclusion to ideas. You still want to criminalize beliefs. Which will never work. Even after 8 centuries the Romans failed are forcing views. In fact Christianity more played a part in its downfall.

This is not the "Minority Report". You cannot predict who will goes against your society or laws. Anyone could, as you have things like crimes of passion. To have a real Liberal state, it excepts all freedom of expression. Even the negative ones.

Thorin wrote:1) What high standards?
You see there is a measure, which will thus exclude people. Thus apartheid mate.

Egalitarian standards.

Thorin wrote:2) But not political toleration, which would then exclude religious as well.

We settled that.  There would be no religious exclusions.

Thorin wrote:3) California has no ideology, just people. It was embracing cultures that made it so liberal in thinking. You wish to abandon this by inclusion to ideas. You still want to criminalize beliefs. Which will never work. Even after 8 centuries the Romans failed are forcing views. In fact Christianity more played a part in its downfall.

California has a very distinct culture, including a language and ideology of its own.  That's why California differs so markedly from southern states.  Polar opposites, really.

Thorin wrote:This is not the "Minority Report". You cannot predict who will goes against your society or laws. Anyone could, as you have things like crimes of passion. To have a real Liberal state, it excepts all freedom of expression. Even the negative ones.

Never seen Minority Report.  Is that what it's all about?  Doesn't it star that Scientology guy?

To be sure, California has bad guys in it.  That's why they have San Quentin Prison and Pelican Bay.  No state or territory is perfect.  I don't want to make it perfect.  I merely want a place purged of the aberrations of racism, bigotry and warmongering that infects the rest of the US.

1) No, its apartheid standards based on beliefs

2) no we did not

3) So does Kent and no the language is English for both

4) The point is this. You either have inclusion or exclusion.

One path takes you on the methodology of the Far Right or Liberalism