PET looks directly into the camera on "60 Minutes" and tells the racist/bigot/haters to STOP IT! Will they? Why should they? Right?

I agree. The people who are committing violence in the name of hatred and bigotry should stop.

http://www.cnn.com/2016/11/10/us/post-election-hate-crimes-and-fears-trnd/

Of course, the incidents where people are protesting AGAINST hatred and bigotry are much larger and easier for the media to spot, so if anything goes wrong with those, it's all over the TV, while there are no great "if it bleeds it leads" pictures of the RWAF violence and intimidation.

Until the RAWF violence stops, I'm a bit inclined to cut some slack to those protesting against it.

I say if it is a crime--it is a crime.  And they need to get a hold of it.  Regardless of whomever it is doing it.  

Protesting is not commiting criminal acts.  As soon as the protesting becomes criminal acts then they should be arrested.

@m2c -- There are crimes and there are crimes.

We make distinctions between violations, misdemeanors, and felonies.

We make distinctions between crimes against property and crimes against persons.

We make distinctions between crimes that are intended merely as destruction (throwing a Molotov cocktail on a neighbor's lawn) and crimes that are intended to intimidate whole groups of people (burning a cross on a neighbor's lawn to let all the other N*gg*rs know it could happen to them next).

I am making a distinction between those who are committing crimes because they believe Trump's election means it's open season on N*gg*rs, Sp*cs, and F****IN HADJIS, and those who are committing crimes because of their frustration with a government which seems to condone abuse of N*gg*rs, Sp*cs, and F***ING HADJIS.

If you don't wish to make such distinctions, that's your right. But if you refuse to make such distinctions, then Donald Trump should not get to serve as President because he has committed multiple crimes in his past (esp. tax code violations and failure to pay employees). He should be in jail, not the White House.

So, are we going to treat ALL criminals the same, or are we going to draw distinctions?

I make no distinction. Violent crime is violent crime and there is no justification.
To say my side can commit crime is hypocritical.  This post was edited by my2cents at November 18, 2016 10:51 AM MST

@m2c -- You just made a distinction. You said "violent crime"

So, is it more "violent" to break a shop window in a situation where no one gets hurt, or deface property with "Make America White Again" grafitti?


This post was edited by OldSchoolTheSKOSlives at November 18, 2016 10:52 AM MST

Both are crimes and both should be arrested. 


(Thank you for the correct above...)

@m2c -- The problem is, in the real world, we don't have infinite law enforcement resources. ALL law enforcement agencies make some decisions about what laws are going to be enforced more vigorously and which ones will be a lower priority.

For example, every person who tokes up in a "legalized marijuana" state is violating federal law. There is NO federal indulgence for MJ use, whether for medical or recreational purposes. Should FBI agents be flooding Colorado and Washington trying to bring weed-smoking scofflaws to justice?

Given the reality of limited resources, I ask again: which "violent crimes" do you prioritize? The broken shop window after the anti-Trump protest or the "Make America White Again" graffiti? This post was edited by OldSchoolTheSKOSlives at November 18, 2016 10:52 AM MST

I say bs. All crimes should be investigated and prosecuted. 

@m2c -- Sometimes it is all too easy to lead you down the garden path to your ultimate Authoritarian impulses.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right-wing_authoritarianism

Rather than accept the reality of limited law enforcement resources, you bellow "THE BAD PEOPLE MUST BE PUNISHED!!!" (which is the Authoritarian clarion call).

I look forward to you volunteering for an extended prison sentence the next time you change lanes while failing to signal (because a crime is a crime and criminals MUST be investigated and prosecuted, right?)

Again. Crime is crime. And all should be enforced. That does not mean Al crimes deserve the same penalty. If I violate a traffic law then I should get a ticket. 

If there are t0o many laws to enforce then we need to look at having fewer laws but it should never be legal to damage or vandalize another persons property.

And what about those that loot and burn and chant kill cops, that write blm on the businesses they loot, should they not be punished?

Of course they should be punished.  Those are crimes. Not protests...crimes.

 The folks he was addressing are the ones involved in hate crimes against minorities which rose after he was elected pez m2c. He is talking to his worshippers..the racists/bigots/hatemongers,. It's been all over the news . He had to say it. He doesn't mean it. I mean he sucked up to them and pandered to them and encouraged them and has made the Hater-in-Chief his White House Counsel on a par power-wise with Reince Preibus whom he has appointed as Chief of Staff. PET is pragmatic. He will do/say what he thinks he must but everyone knows what he really is. A racist/b igot/hatremonger enabler/encourager/supporter, Sorry but that's how I see it. However there is hope. He has already softened his stance on some issues months before he is sworn in. Being President will change him. Hopefully for the better. He will see the gravity of the job and I don't think his supporters are gonna like what they see. Too bad. Oh dear. Thank you for your reply and Happy Tuesday to thee! :)

I know who the reporter was directing the question towards. Trump handled it fine. He told idiots to stop. They should stop and they should be arrested. 
Now just because the reporter used the question to once again make a dig at Trump supporters. Does not mean that the criminals who are not Trump supporters (protesters??) should get a pass. I think both Clinton and Obama should come out and tell these people to stop it.  They also should be arrested. 
Anyone who thinks that one side or the other should get a pass on their crimes is only showing they are a hypocrite. 

He said it Karen but he had to say it. He doesn't really mean it. Why? Because the perps are among those who voted for him. They are his people. His base. His worshippers. So he said what he had to say. But he is bringing Hatemonger-in-chief Steven Bannon into the White House as his top advisor on a par power-wise with Reince Preibus who will be Chief of Staff. That tells you all you need to know about PET's sincerity. It is very troubling to me. Thank you for your thoughtful answer  m'dear and Happy Tuesday! :)

The Hillary supporters are rioting and destroying property and attacking people because of skin color. It's ALL one big mess and BOTH sides need to be stopped. 

That's what a lot of them are doing though.  

When you watch you will see that the question is actually only aimed at Trump supporters. Which Trump tells to stop it.  They do not address the Anti Trump criminals and the violence and damage they are doing and causing. 
Very annoying. That the left wing criminals are excused as protests.