"if only you got this worked up every time a white cop decided he was above the law instead of trying to mitigate Castile's murder over misdemeanors in his past."
FYI your context here reads like you're implying the officer who shot Castille was white (the officer who shot Castille was Yanez), and this was where Phantom was likely getting that inference from.
Also, the misdemeanors listed off in the post you quoted were for Jamar Clark.
I think the problem is that Brexit is unraveling with every new day of talks (look at today's Grauniad or Telegraph) and the Tories own it lock, stock and barrel. It doesn't help that the whole Government is a shambles and ministers are openly contradicting each other, and May is, in fact, seen as a coward for not resigning after blowing it up.
The question is- how does it get any better for them? Brexit is only going to get worse as it becomes obvious that May and her ministers haven't got any clue of what they are doing and that all possible outcomes are worse than staying.
And by the way, the use of Eastern European countries as my argument was about how their lesser welfare state did not cause civil unrest, and that Greece had a weakening economy that would drive riots, thus being a counterpoint to Hodgekins being radicalized over austerity measures. It is still within the realm of discussion.
You asked why all of those attempts on Castro's life isn't terrorism, and I told you he was a military target and then said that Trump isn't. Violence is being directed towards Trump and the GOP by people like Hodgekins. The only reason you are resulting to "muh derailing" is because you believe you have lost the argument and want to leave.
Every time you veered off the topic, it was to try to bring up examples that were against my points. I said that people like Hodgekins aren't motivated by austerity but by violent rhetoric, and then you bring up the Austerity Riots. I bring up that he is committing terrorism, you bring up Oswald and Castro.
Hell, you've even went off on tangents about your personal heroes. I am not making tangents, I am merely defending my points. You are disillusioned and trying to defend the fact that you've admitted defeat.
In the entire thread, I was merely defending my points. My points for austerity were within the realm of the discussion because I was saying they do not justify violence and were less likely going to motivate Hodgekin's actions.
Regarding the whole terrorism debacle, it is related because I am saying that attacking civilians (no matter what class they are) with political motives is terrorism, and thus Hodgekins is a terrorist.
What is your point in claiming "muh tangents" when I am still within the realms of discussion, and if wasn't, it was brought upon you bringing a litany of events not related to the discussion?
I am aware he is dead, and that his brother is the current person in charge. Sure, referring to him in present tense can be confusing, true, but I was just bringing up a point.
And by the way, if I am derailing the thread, you would be the one starting it. After all, I've only said that the guy's motive wasn't austerity and that he was committing terrorism. You tried challenging my points with examples like Greece and the amount of assassination attempts Castro has.
