Senate The US Politics discussion

Grandfather allegedly beaten and told 'to go back to Mexico'

Police are looking for several suspects following a brutal 4 July attack on a 92-year-old Mexican man in his family's Los Angeles neighbourhood.

Rodolfo Rodriguez says he passed a woman on his daily walk when she began assaulting him with a brick and called on a group of men to join the attack.

He was taken to hospital with a broken cheekbone and two broken ribs.

A neighbour filmed the assault and told US media that the woman who first hit him said: "Go back to your country."

"I can't walk anymore," Mr Rodriguez told CNN in an interview. "I'm in so much pain."

Mr Rodriguez, a permanent resident of the US who lives in Michoacan, Mexico, said he visits his family in California about twice a year.

He was walking to a nearby park when the attack occurred.

"I just passed her and she pushed me and she hit me until she was done," he said.

Misbel Borjas, a witness who captured the incident on her phone, told CNN the woman attacked the elderly man with her hands and then a brick or slab of concrete, shouting at him to "go back to your country, go back to Mexico".

Ms Borjas said when she tried to defend Mr Rodriguez, the woman threatened to hit her with the brick.

As Ms Borjas recorded the attack, she says a group of younger men came and began kicking Mr Rodriguez as he was on the ground.

Erik Mendoza, Mr Rodriguez's grandson, found his grandfather later that evening, bloodied and bruised on the street and unable to walk.

"I'm just overwhelmed how anybody can do this to a human being at all," Mr Mendoza told CBS News.

"He's 92 years of age. There's no harm that he meant for you to treat him the way you did."

His grandson said Mr Rodriguez does not speak much English and did not understand why he was being attacked.

Following a social media uproar over the attack, Mr Mendoza set up a GoFundMe page to raise money for the grandfather's hospital expenses. Donations have already surpassed $165,000 (£124,000).

Mr Rodriguez was discharged last week and is recovering at home.

Officer Tony Im said on Monday that police have not identified any suspects.

Sheriff's deputy D'Angelo Robinson told KTLA 5 News that police "are concerned" with this crime, but have not yet determined a motive.

"There was what appears to be a four-year-old child there who witnessed the entire thing," he said. "We can't have these kind of people like that out in the streets."

On Monday, the California Department of Justice released the state's 2017 crime reports, showing a 17% overall rise in hate crimes from 2016.

According to the report, there were 126 anti-Hispanic bias incidents last year - an increase of 51.8% from 2016.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-44772311

 

And if you wish to understand just how screwed up the situation is, look at the picture of the alleged attacker whose obviously racist motive "could not yet be determined".

 

Israeli, Saudi, and Emirati Officials Privately Pushed for Trump to Strike a “Grand Bargain” with Putin

Mr. Magoo rides again.

 

Messed up.

 

Good politics is like andouillette - when well prepared, they have to smell a bit like a turd.

 

This isn't good politics. This is appeasement to an authoritarian who is subjugating his neighbors.

 

On the contrary, this is excellent politics. Those states' representatives do not care a whit about the populations involved, but on their own state interests and how they could make those coincide with other states' interests against their own regional enemies.

 

I agree with all of that. In fact, I can pride myself on being the first Russian Ties Alarmist itt. I think it's at the least uninformed to say there's nothing there.

But I don't think gezvader has ever said that. He's just saying there's propaganda on both sides. Now, I think this is a very worthwhile thing to say, all the more so because nobody here is saying it. And if I think about the media consumed here, I know it's true, too. Every day we see stupid posts about some stupid thing Trump did. Unrelated to policy, it's about his hair, or his antics, or his porn stars. Everything Trump or Trump JR or Giuliani says about the investigation is dutifully investigated by those not part of the investigation. It's almost as if it's a public investigation.
But it isn't. It's ongoing, and until the results are presented, it's not shameful to be critical of all positions taken towards it.

And that's not even my point. My point is that Roomate has been trying for weeks now to brand this criticism as something that belongs squarely in the Trump camp. As if any criticism of media that salivatingly reports negatively on Trump's every move automatically aligns one with the KKK. Not even as if; that's what he's saying.

That attitude is as dangerous to the open exchange of ideas as Trump and his cabal.

 

Trump was like a “predator” toward teens at parties in ’80s and ’90s, says BBC report

Psh! He wasn't a predator. He probably just couldn't see very well and Magooed it up. Just so happens that he did this with women exclusively. But I swear! He couldn't see properly and the siren song of women were the only thing he could follow.

Well, most of the criticism of the Mueller probe does come from the Trump camp. Even the questioning of it. So yeah, I'd agree in that sense. Most talking points of criticisms of it do start with them and the state propaganda that is Fox News.

 

I'm not even defending being critical of the Mueller probe. I'm sticking up for being critical of all the reports on the Mueller probe. And I say that as someone who's privately convinced of Trump's guilt.

 

I think the US news media and some top Democrats like Schumer are being very misleading while ramping-up opposition to Kavanaugh. There's plenty to oppose him on. But why they're trying to imply that the Supreme Court would be the jury of any Trump trial is beyond me. There's actual, real issues to run on.

Yeah, I read about that earlier. It's terrible.

 

Trump: "Putin may be the easiest to deal with. Who would have thought?"

a whole lot of us

 

Whatever the reality of the Supreme Court dealing with anything remotely related to Mueller's investigation (which is unlikely), I think it's clear that Kavanaugh's thoughts on presidential power was all Trump considered in making his pick.
And I've seen press about how some conservatives are 'unhappy' with the pick, but that's completely meaningless. They'll put a sad face on a website post and then continue to back Trump 100%.

 

I think Justice Kennedy actually recommended Kavanaugh to Trump to be his replacement, like how John Paul Stevens recommended Elena Kagan as his replacement.

 

@blackmyron

The only reasons many hard right wingers are happy with the Kavanaugh nomination it is because they see it as a "win" (which is all they care about, they could care less about the well being of the nation itself) and Brett is seen as protection for tRump. As one of best friends said and my go to for anything legal put it, DJT is trying to choose his own jury when it is all said and done.

@Ghost

Yes he did since Kavanaugh clerked for Kennedy. Brett is really about as Republican establishment as he can get which is the reason why the poms poms were not out on Breithart and other far right sites. They feel like Brett will be more of a conservative voice on the court then Kennedy who they saw as a RINO which is ironic since he really was never the "swing" vote he was made out to be IMHO. Kennedy by and large voted with the conservative bloc when it mattered most just wasn't always a vote they could always count on. Brett will be more of a vote the conservative bloc can count on but again I don't see it as a big deal since again Kennedy wasn't the swing vote that he was precieved to be plus I have a hunch will see Roberts vote more with the liberal bloc and become the swing vote on the court.


Meanwhile Ron Johnson might have to add his name to the list of foreign agents that have a government job:

 

Well, one good thing about Kennedy recommending Kavanaugh... with the one big issue that Kennedy sided with the liberals on: gay rights... I think/hope that's an indicator that Kennedy would only have recommended Kavanaugh if Kavanaugh wouldn't upend his legacy on LGBT+ issues.

 

I don't think Kennedy would recommended Kavanaugh if he thought Brett would just go out and destroy his legacy on anything including LGBT issues. But keep in mind though Kennedy knows how insane the GOP has become so he had to recommend someone that is seen as being conservative enough to please the GOP. Never forget that it was Republicans who torpedoed Harriet Miers nomination for not being "conservative enough". Now Miers was not qualified to sit on the court which is why she would never been allowed to get confirm but that wasn't the reason why the GOP said no to her. It was because her viewpoints were not hard right enough for them. And remember that was under the GWB administration which was over ten years ago and honestly, the GOP has become even hard right edged.

 

Harriet Myers nomination was torpedoed because she's a twit.

 

Based on the degree to which he seems to have been totally unqualified for his job from day one, it'll be fun to watch him try to pretend he even knows what they're talking about.

 

That story with the 92 year old man broke my heart.

 

You hit a 92 year old man with a brick, they should give you 92 years of hitting bricks in the joint.

 

^mine too

And then there's this:

Viral video shows man harassing woman for wearing a Puerto Rico shirt

Authorities in Illinois placed an officer on desk duty after video surfaced showing him standing by while a woman is harassed. The footage of the incident was posted online, gaining widespread attention

https://www.cbsnews.com/viral-video-shows-man-harassing-woman-for-wearing-a-puerto-rico-shirt

As you have said, YR:

 

Well, it would appear that Trump-level arrogance is a winning strategy.

 

It's seasoning to the main course, the masses need a figurehead that looks confident enough, and arrogant is one way of looking the part.

The indispensable ingredient in the fascist, communist, or fanatical religious dish variants, however, is the definition of what is the enemy, justified by reasons your supporters will take as moral high ground, and convincing your own supporters they don't need to consider anybody fitting the label as another human being worthy of any consideration, because they aren't on the moral high ground.

 

So, why didn't someone ask, "Wait, our trade with Russia is bad because you are supposed to protect us from them but U.S. trade with Russia is ok?"