You must log in or register to comment.
We said thoughts and prayers, isn’t that their custom for victims of gun violence?
Are we supposed to be emulating them? Isn’t that just stooping to their level? Why not be the better man?
Somone wise once said, fool me once shame on you foot me twice… Can’t get fooled again!
Republicans have been pushing hate and fear for DECADES. They have laughed at tragedies and drawn crosshairs on their political opponents.
So yea, we don’t need to be better men.
I don’t condone violence, but I also have zero sympathy for someone who’s done nothing except stoke fear and violence at every turn.
This is the correct attitude
I don’t feel bad stooping to their level on this. Moral victory is pretty meaningless in the end, especially in a situation like this. It’s really just cathartic.
Not even that if it’s as obvious that they genuinely couldn’t care less about your moral victory and are proceeding to keep being subhuman slime with zero sense of consequence for it.
Better men are the ones that string the fascist up from gas stations.
You’re not entitled to the people you’ve hurt being the bigger person for you.
What you’re entitled to is to be grateful if all they do is pay you back evenly or at lesser cost to you than you put them through.
r u jesus?
When it’s no longer working sometimes you have to abandon being the better man and punch a bully in the mouth.
You can be a better man if you want, i’m not wasting social niceties on someone who took a fat dump on the social contract and told me to eat up. And that is my choice to make.
Brilliant. The only issue is conservatives don’t make arguments by logic. Using logic against them does nothing. The people who need to see this likely can’t even read.
I’ve been saying this for years, you can’t do good faith with a bad faith person.
Imo the correct solution is some light trolling, light enough that you still have the moral high ground.
People have been saying that more and more recently.
Agreed, they’re pretty much sub-human so it’s okay to shoo-
Whoops, almost went a little too far there. Just the hate for my fellow man for me, officer.
Nice job inserting words that weren’t said but outing yourself instead
outing yourself
Not Republican, not even American.
They are pointing out your us vs them mentality. Its bad both ways.
Edit: you also dont need to be stupid to be brainwashed
Pretending there isn’t 2 groups is just stupid. Thinking that having 2 groups immediately means they are sub-human and warrant death is a conservative view point. Normal people understand that there will be disagreements, and it’s not out of hate.
They had to add “death, police, just hate sir” example to make it extreme, so they can pretend they are validated in their own hate.
you got to love how they turned the tables and are blaming democrats for fostering an environment of violence lol. Is this what a logic lapse looks like?
And Democrats are gonna buy it and become even more milquetoast.
And further alienate any actual people that might support them. They have to condemn political violence because it was an attack on their class, and their class solidarity overrides any political rivalry. But even my very liberal friend said “dang, it’s too bad they missed.” Idk what my Christian grandma feels about the shooting but when Trump got covid she did say he deserved it.
Most if not all. Would not put is past Bernie to show up to the next congressional hearing with an MP5K under his jacket and say “just in case.”
Basically I’m saying we need more Bernies
Welcome to the Post-Fact world of the Alt-Right… They don’t care that their arguments make no sense, it’s about the feeling behind it.
Is this what a logic lapse looks like?
Nope. Logic plays no part in it because it’s all emotional manipulation. As much as the word gets overused nowadays, this is gaslighting. Straight from the abuser’s handbook - Deny Accusations, Reverse Victim & Offender (DARVO).
The conservative subreddit is losing their mind rn. They say calling Trump a threat to democracy is violent rhetoric.
Grasping at all the straws in the world.
They say calling Trump a threat to democracy is violent rhetoric.
They aren’t strictly wrong. When Republicans insisted that Clinton, Obama, and Biden were a threat to democracy, they absolutely intended it as a call to violence.
The hiccup in their reasoning is that the shooter was one of their dudes. The “Trump is a threat to democracy” line isn’t just a GOTV message among Dems. Its an ear-splitting dog whistle from the secessionists and white nationalists who see Jared Kushner as a shadowy (((puppet master))) working Trump’s strings. This call came from inside the GOP’s own house.
Grasping at all the straws in the world.
Not at all. This is pure projection. Republicans shooting at Republicans, while everyone points at the other and shouts “Double Secret Antifa Infiltrator!” They’ve drunk their own Deep State kool-aid and now they’ve got the long knives out for one another.
Its an ear-splitting dog whistle from the secessionists and white nationalists who see Jared Kushner as a shadowy (((puppet master))) working Trump’s strings. This call came from inside the GOP’s own house.
Are we going to make calling out Trumpism anti-semetic now?
Its an attitude common to American ultra-nationalists. When you see reactionaries, particularly on the AM Talk Radio circuit, turn on Trump, there’s inevitably a deep strain of anti-semetism used to justify it.
Yep because of course great leader Trump can’t be doing anything wrong, it must be others manipulating him and among the right others always ends up meaning Jews.
great leader Trump can’t be doing anything wrong
He could learn to duck. Dude’s lucky there wasn’t a second gunman or he’d have been dead for sure.
They’re also upset that the shooter was apparently one of their own and not an evil lefty liberal. Clearly they would have liked that.
“If [Hillary Clinton] gets to pick her judges, nothing you can do, folks,” Mr. Trump said, as the crowd began to boo. He quickly added: “Although the Second Amendment people — maybe there is, I don’t know.”
He was just joking though. You can tell because he always speaks plainly.
Fucking hell I totally forgot about this shit. Thank you for reminding us.
it’s been a while since i’ve heard them whine about BLM burning the entire country down
I have been stuck swamping in a truck for days with the driver blasting right wing radio. They never stopped whining about BLM, they just pepper it into everything because they no longer feel the need to talk about it on it’s own anymore.
When something becomes that ubiquitous it’s always there but as a supporting member of the chorus, not the one in the spotlight
if it wasn’t BLM it would just be one of the other dozens of stupid bullshits they perpetually cry about
Oh they always just say it in a word vomit. Ie :
“The antifa, globalist, deep state, Black lives matter, gender confused mob…”
It’s like bad beat poetry.
Is Portland still actively on fire? I heard after all the immigrants murdered everyone in Chicago they went north
To Milwaukee?
It’s hard to keep up with the bullshit. I think they’re storming buildings and burning phoenix down with their angry might to make sure everyone votes republican but also applying to work at every single kitchen in the country for $2/hr. Immigrants are an easy election target
On the streets of Phoenix, can confirm that the BLM fires are raging strong on woke fuel while the strong-yet-somehow-weak-right-now conservatives are all captive in their
homesman dwellings. It is truly a successful LGBTQ+ immigrant plot.
From the first few paragraphs about fascism on Wikipedia
Fascism rejects assertions that violence is inherently negative or pointless, instead viewing imperialism, political violence, and war as means to national rejuvenation
Yes but they will gladly act like violence is bad to gain the sympathy of the average person when it’s against their own people.
We don’t even really need to check who has been defending or denouncing what if you want to see who’s committing violence, there’s an even more damning statistic.
Number of People Killed in Deadly Attacks in the Post-9/11 Era, by Ideology
-
Far Right Wing: 134
-
Jihadist: 107
-
Ideological Misogyny/Incel Ideology: 17
-
Black Separatist/Nationalist/Supremacist: 13
-
Far Left Wing: 1
It should also be noted that Jihadist terror attacks have almost as many victims as far right terror attacks because the former are just more efficient, but far right terror attacks are far more common. Check the graph in the article.
The fact that the far right candidate has been under a murder attempt by another far right loon is just the cherry on top.
Doesn’t even count the OKC bombing, which would shoot up those numbers
-
The shooter was a right wing nutjob apparently?
Personally I think that the whole thing was staged
I absolutely do not think it’s staged and hate conspiracy nonsense in general.
But, I like this conspiracy because it’s basically doing to Republicans what they do to all victims of actual tragedies. These monsters called Sandy hook crisis actors…
So yea, all of this was definitely staged and is fake news 😂
My personal suspicion is he was a high school libertarian who then realized it was not what he thought. I called myself a libertarian in high school for a short time before I realized what that group was really about (basically freedom to hate, not freedom to love, unless it’s loving children). I now call myself an anarchist.
At the end of the day, it doesn’t really matter. He was a kid who lost his life probably doing something he was convinced was important, as so many kids do. Is he better or worse than the kids who were told that people in Iraq were evil and a threat to America?
Trump, and the whole MAGA movement, have done so much to erode trust in our institutions. The fact someone felt the need to put everything on the line for their (likely futile) attempt to stop it sucks. Even in success it likely would have failed. It would have galvanized support for that faction and someone else would have taken up the position. We need something more powerful than a bullet to kill the movement.
Conservative libertarianism can be summed up as “Don’t tread on me treading on you.”
libertarian in high school for a short time before I realized what that group was really about (basically freedom to hate, not freedom to love, unless it’s loving children)
?? That’s… exactly the opposite of libertarianism. Look at the Libertarian Party nominee for 2024, he’s a gay man who is extremely supportive of the trans community and came from the left. That’s just about the opposite of the caricature you’ve painted.
I wonder if by “libertarian” you mean the “libertarian” wing of the Republican Party? Because those aren’t libertarians at all, they’re just conservatives who aren’t as openly against civil rights. They’re the sorts that somehow justify supporting Trump, which makes absolutely no sense to someone with libertarian values (again, see how Trump was booed at the Libertarian National Convention).
Libertarians believe in the non-aggression principle (i.e. they just want to leave you alone), and someone who attempts to assassinate a presidential candidate certainly doesn’t meet that bar. They believe in same sex marriage (and probably non-monogomous marriage), access to recreational drugs, no foreign military involvement, increased legal immigration, fiscal responsibility, etc.
We need something more powerful than a bullet to kill the movement.
Exactly. We need to disseminate truth. Show people how Trump’s policies have failed and will fail. Expose his lies, and demonstrate how alternatives are better. Unfortunately, Biden isn’t the right candidate to spread that message. I am looking at Chase Oliver (Libertarian Party candidate) to spread that message, but unfortunately the LP is having some internal issues so he may be limited in his reach.
What we need is a champion for liberty that’s willing to call out BS on both sides of the aisle, not in a “both sides” sense, but by calling out unique issues with both major parties. That push needs to be strong enough to make concrete steps toward solving the roots of the problem, such as:
- alternative voting systems - personal preference for STAR or Approval, but Ranked Choice works
- end gerrymandering - personal preference for proportional representation within the states, but independent commissions work
- reform political debates - any candidate who is on enough ballots to mathematically win should be invited to at least the first debate
- reform campaign funding - massive fines for inaccurate ads, and perhaps ban ads altogether except for ads for debates
Those have at least some chance at fixing things.
That’s… exactly the opposite of libertarianism.
American libertarianism got co-opted by white nationalism way back in the 1930s, under Ludwig Von Mises and Murray Rothbard.
Look at the Libertarian Party nominee for 2024, he’s a gay man who is extremely supportive of the trans community and came from the left.
Kathy Glass won the Texas Libertarian Gubernatorial nomination in 2010 and 2014. She’s an outspoken white supremacist with deep Trump sympathies. She abandoned the party in 2016 to go follow Trump, and she took a large chunk of the party base with her.
Libertarians believe in the non-aggression principle
They espouse it. But when you get into what qualifies as “aggression”, everything from migration to miscegenation can qualify. Thomas Sowell, a staunch libertarian economist, was a full throated supporter of the Iraq War on the grounds that Saddam helped perpetrate 9/11, evidence to the contrary be damned. Notorious Libertarian-Republican Ron Paul claimed that individuals infected with AIDS “victimizes innocent citizens by forcing them to pay for care", in a newsletter that argued for the criminalization of gay sex.
I am looking at Chase Oliver (Libertarian Party candidate) to spread that message, but unfortunately the LP is having some internal issues so he may be limited in his reach.
That’s by design. The LP is shot-through with the worst strains of American bigotry and xenophobia intentionally. They’re a common injection point for far-right conspiracies and a testing ground for ultra-nationalist ideology. Once you wrap an idea under the cover of free markets and individual liberties, you can smuggle it into the mainstream GOP and then on to “centrist” American politics.
Everything from Trump’s Big Beautiful Wall to Lynne Cheney’s trade war with China to JD Vance’s Project 2025 can trace their roots back to libertarian academia.
she took a large chunk of the party base with her.
Good riddance.
The issue with libertarians is that they can never agree on anything. Chase Oliver, for example, won the presidential nomination, yet the Colorado Libertarian Party nominated RFK instead. The Mises Caucus took over the party, their preferred candidate lost, and some “libertarians” across the country are butthurt about that.
It’s an exciting third party to watch, and their platform doesn’t even align with my own ideals. I’m registered with my state’s Libertarian Party, but that’s because they’re the biggest third party nationally, and I care more about third parties getting recognition than about the specific platform they espouse (and I’m probably closer to my state’s LP platform than any other party, so that helps).
That’s why people talk about the difference between big-l Libertarians (i.e. members of the party) and small-l libertarians (those who consider themselves ideologically libertarian). White supremacy is absolutely anti-libertarian, as is any other form of hate, and I think pretty much all small-l libertarians and most big-l Libertarians would agree with that statement.
Thomas Sowell, a staunch libertarian economist
Pfft, he’s not libertarian. I respect him, but he’s a conservative through and through. My conservative grandfather (lifelong GOP member) would send us grandkids snippets from his columns. He’s somewhat libertarian on economics, but conservative on everything else.
IMO, anyone who supported the Iraq war cannot call themselves libertarian. Libertarians do not support wars of aggression, full stop. Libertarians should absolutely be against supporting Israel in Gaza, for example. Saddam had absolutely nothing to do with 9/11, and even if he did, invading Iraq would not be justifiable. There’s a reason the Libertarian Party uses the porcupine as its mascot, and it’s because they’re not aggressive at all and instead have very strong defenses (quills).
Notorious Libertarian-Republican Ron Paul claimed that individuals infected with AIDS “victimizes innocent citizens by forcing them to pay for care", in a newsletter that argued for the criminalization of gay sex.
Ron Paul is a lot closer, but only on foreign policy and fiscal matters, not on social issues. I can absolutely understand his premise (people with AIDS may use more medical resources than those without), but the conclusion is anti-libertarian. The libertarian answer here would be to allow care providers and insurance companies to adjust their prices based on things like sexual orientation if it adds a significant financial risk. Libertarians will never consider “the ends justifies the means” as a valid argument because civil liberties always come first.
Ron Paul got me excited about libertarianism because he was the only one with a national media presence saying things I agreed with, namely that we should close foreign bases and stop bombing people. I then found Penn Jillette, and his brand of libertarianism sat much better with me.
They’re a common injection point for far-right conspiracies and a testing ground for ultra-nationalist ideology.
I don’t think that’s fair. I think it’s more fair to say that those on the far-right have gotten booted from everywhere else and the Libertarian Party is radically inclusive. If you want to run for President, all you need to do is join a Libertarian Party somewhere or make a donation, and convince a delegate to submit your name. That’s why RFK was nominated at the National Convention (someone entered his name, with his permission), but he lost in the first round. And IMO, that’s how it should be.
Look at Trump speaking at the LP, he was essentially laughed out, especially when he tried to use the “if you want to win, vote for me” card, and his follow up of “good luck with your 3% of the vote.” Trump has no roots in libertarianism, he just has a vocal fanbase, and some claim to be libertarian. It’s like the hacker group Anonymous, anyone can claim to be them, but that doesn’t mean actions by one member are condoned by another.
Here’s a leftist interviewing Larry Sharpe, a prominent libertarian who ran for governor of NY. In it, he goes through and details a lot of misconceptions people have about libertarianism, one of my favorite was when he called out Reason magazine as being “Republicans who hate Trump,” which IMO is pretty accurate.
The libertarian ideal isn’t bad, but like you said it has internal issues where a significant portion are bad. Anyway, libertarianism doesn’t generally want to protect people. That’s why I prefer anarchism. Freedom for the individual and protections against corporations and other powers. Libertarians generally want “freedom” to be ruled by the elite, because they don’t want to put in controls over them.
LIbertarians are massive fans of negative rights, but not positive rights (negative = can’t do X, positive = must do X). So libertarians would be absolutely in favor of things like worker protections (e.g. can’t fire someone for striking), not in favor of things like universal healthcare (e.g. can’t compel a doctor to provide care), and a bit mixed on entitlements (most see cash entitlements as better than programs, but prefer no entitlements whatsoever).
I like the idea of anarchism, I just don’t think it’ll work in practice. There will always be people that want to seize power, so I think it’s more likely to devolve into feudalism than for society to push against those powerful factions. People just… really suck at avoiding tribalism. So I believe in limited government that prevents any one group from getting too much power, and also provides a minimal safety net to prevent effective slavery.
Anarchism isn’t a lack of government. It’s just limited government and general removal or reduction of hierarchy. There’s a lot of similarities between it an libertarianism, except anarchism sees the control being taken by corporations and fights against that. Libertarians invite hierarchy by not putting in protections against it.
You see the potential failures of anarchism (although you’re not describing the political movement of anarchism, rather the definition of the word as commonly used), in that people will try to take power, but do you not see that a company will take power over people’s lives if libertarians get their way? Like I said, I used to call myself a libertarian. This was before I had learned how much capitalists want to use their power to control people. Negative freedoms are there to be exploited if left unchecked.
Even with the government we have now we see massive issues in wage slavery, where you need to work to survive but you don’t have enough available options to be free and fight your employer for your fair share of the value created from your labor, hence why the elites are getting so rich while the rest of us stagnate at best.
The way I see it, anarchism is a variety of systems that are united by a distrust in central authority. I don’t know of any single political movement of anarchism, only the general category of anarchism, which includes things like anarcho-capitalism, anarcho-communism, and everything in between.
do you not see that a company will take power over people’s lives if libertarians get their way?
Trust-busting is an essential role of government. Libertarians are generally against monopolies, since monopolies indicate that markets aren’t working as intended. In fact, most libertarians advocate for small companies, whereas both Republicans and Democrats advocate for regulations and whatnot that just lead to larger companies entrenching themselves. When you strip the regulations that raise the barrier to entry, you get more competition. When you remove legal protections, large organizations will get targeted by angry customers and workers.
we see massive issues in wage slavery
And do you know why that is? It’s precisely because of government regulations that have destroyed smaller businesses. Requiring businesses to offer benefits, minimum wages, etc increases the barrier to entry for smaller businesses who may rely on family members, friends, etc for labor as the business is established, all of whom are okay with foregoing certain benefits to help the business succeed.
Libertarians are against such restrictions.
I am a bit odd in that I support a Negative Income Tax (supported by Milton Friedman), which would guarantee a minimum standard of living for everyone (set the floor the poverty level or something). Pair that with eliminating the minimum wage and workplace benefits, and people will only take jobs that they actually want to take. That’s a pretty small government policy if you ask me, high tax, but small in economic oversight, and I think it can solve a host of issues we have in the economy without resorting to regulations. This directly subverts “capitalists’” ability to control people, because you’ll always have the option to say “no” while still having basic necessities met.
I honestly have no problem with “the elites” getting rich, provided the rest of us are getting richer as well, and the economic indicators I’ve looked at indicate that is, in fact, happening. People today are generally better off than they were 10, 20, 50, etc years ago. Yes, the wealth and income gap is widening, but real wages are increasing, generally speaking (here’s data for median real wages over the last 50-ish years in the US).
Dude, the current situation is not because of regulation like increase minimum wage or such. It also occurred (much worse) before we had those. Just look at the gilded age. Very little regulation and almost zero competition in many industries.
You can almost always find the issue by looking at what the elites are against. They’re against unions, increasing the minimum wage, and other regulations. The goal of capitalism is maximum exploitation of resources, which includes human resources. They want to remove regulations that prevent this to increase profits. Just look at how many rich assholes are libertarians, because it benefits them the most, not because it’s beneficial to everyone else.
Real wages are potentially increasing marginally over time, yet productivity is increasing even more. The difference between productivity and wages has increased over time. People do more work and get paid less.
Labor is the source of value. Without labor the rich can’t get richer. Only through exploiting labor do they get anywhere. The only way the wealth gap increases is by the rich taking more and more from the people actually creating the value. They are stealing from workers by removing ways they can negotiate for fair compensation.
I prefer the theory that he was a radical centrist.
Yeah, according to his wikipedia page, he was:
- registered republican
- advocated for conservative views in high school debates
- donated to a progressive voter turnout project the same day Biden was sworn in
To me that means he had conservative views that don’t align with Trump’s views. My guess is that he felt Trump steered the party in the wrong direction, which is totally understandable. Prior to Trump, the Republican Party was relatively centrist (look at Romney and McCain, the two prior GOP candidates), and after Trump, the rhetoric among conservatives really ramped up.
So yeah, I think radical centrist totally fits the bill.
Honestly, I used to consider myself Republican as a teenager, and that was true until just after the 2012 election. I really liked Rand Paul, and seeing him get totally rejected was disappointing, to say the least. I voted Libertarian in 2016, and for Biden in 2020, all because I absolutely despise Trump. I am no longer under any illusion that I’m conservative (I’m very socially liberal), but I can see how someone who considers themselves conservative could not mesh at all with Trump’s message, to the point where they see him as a threat to their preferred party.
He didn’t donate to a progressive fund. That was a 69 year old man, with the same name, in Pittsburgh, not Bethel Park.
Source? NY Times, Reuters, and BBC all claim that, and they tend to do decent research. I haven’t looked into donation records myself, but if three big, respected news agencies all report the same thing, I tend to believe them. It is possible that they’re all basing it off the same, wrong source since it’s a breaking story, so I’ll give you that, but I’ll need more proof than a random lemmy comment.
He was 17 when that happened, and you aren’t allowed to make that category of donation, in PA, until 18. Second there is a ZIP code attached to the public record of all donors, the ZIP for the only Thomas Crooks is one for a district in Pittsburgh. This district has one Thomas Crooks, a 69 year old man. While Thomas Crooks the shooter is from Bethel Park. I have screen shots of the information, but every time I try to post an image in the comment it just doesn’t show up.
Interesting. Have you reached out to the relevant news agencies to correct the record? They could probably verify with a quick call to the 69yo Thomas Crooks.
But I guess that’s the nature of early information. Thanks for pointing that out, I’ll refrain from further assumptions until I get more concrete information. The investigation is, afterall, ongoing.
I got this information from other places. It has been circulating for some hours now. However, Looking at it again, for these comments, I realized 15102 is Bethel Park, so it was the shooter, however he made the donation under age, I guess.
a link to the two screen shots
Thanks! I hope we’ll get more reliable information soon from the investigation. It would be good to know if this is an isolated incident, or if the individual got involved in some extremist group. Cases like this seem to be individual actors, but it could always be a cell of some variety.
I got this information from other places. It has been circulating for some hours now. However, Looking at it again, for these comments, I realized 15102 is Bethel Park, so it was the shooter, however he made the donation under age, I guess.
I got this information from other places. It has been circulating for some hours now. However, Looking at it again, for these comments, I realized 15102 is Bethel Park, so it was the shooter, however he made the donation under age, I guess.
deleted by creator
If it was staged, it was one hell of a show.
But there are more than a few Republicans who would love to see Trump six feet under, just to clear the way for their own jackboots. I don’t think its a coincidence that Trump picked Peter Thiel’s favorite Senator as his VP, two days after a far-right gun nut wings him. He’s circling the wagons and shoring up support among his gun-nuttier base.
Nutjob, sure, but probably not “right wing.” Here’s the facts as stated on his wikipedia page:
- registered Republican
- held conservative views in high school
- donated to a progressive fund the day Biden was sworn in
So, he’s conservative and despises Trump. Someone who’s way far to the right wouldn’t donate to a progressive fund. I think he was a relatively moderate Republican who liked the GOP before Trump/MAGA took over, so basically Romney and McCain, not Trump and MTG.
He didn’t donate to a progressive fund. That was a 69 year old man, with the same name, in Pittsburgh, not Bethel Park.
As I wrote up elsewhere, three major news sites that I generally trust all reported the same thing. Do you have proof that they’re all wrong?
there is the link. two screen shots. sorry, it won’t let me put it in the comment.
This is a good lesson in how much “research” goes into most breaking news. Those “trusted news sites” just saw a common first and last name and assumed it was the same guy.
It’s just “Michael Bolton” all over again.
I got this information from other places. It has been circulating for some hours now. However, Looking at it again, for these comments, I realized 15102 is Bethel Park, so it was the shooter, however he made the donation under age, I guess.
There’s no confirmation of that. This is literally just a “Michael Bolton” situation. It could be him or an unrelated person.
My point is that the media has repeated it as fact, while the registration information used his full name (including middle) and birthday. Maybe address too (I forget). They just want to stir up drama before confirming anything.
You learn these things doing genealogy. You need a high number of data points to confirm who someone is. People get all excited if they have the same last name as a famous person. There are literally a million people with similar last names.
I do, how do I post screenshots, every time I try the comment comes up with no image./
Yeah keeps unble to load image from imgur, and another place I have tried.
Links are better, esp. if there’s an update to whatever the page is.
But just attach an image with the little “upload image” button (on web lemmy, it’s next to the emoji button). If that doesn’t work, perhaps there’s an issue w/ your instance and you should instead use something like imgur.
Or he’s a former Bernie supporter who got radicalized after Bernie lost. Your political compass can change very quickly when you’re that young.
Or he’s a former Bernie supporter who got radicalized after Bernie lost.
Is there anything lemmy won’t blame on Sanders supporters?
Bernie ran for President in 2020 and the suspect registered Republican in 2021. It’s possible, but that’s only a year from Bernie’s campaign, so it seems unlikely.
My interpretation given Occam’s Razor is that he was likely conservative who aggressively disagreed with Trump. I wouldn’t be surprised if he would’ve voted for Biden if we was born a year earlier, based on frustration with Trump and Biden’s relatively moderate positions.
Conservatives don’t typically donate to progressive funds.
Sure, but Trump also wasn’t a typical conservative candidate (e.g. he got dead last in my red state’s [Utah] primary, and won by plurality instead of majority in 2016). His campaign prompted Evan McMullin to attempt to spoil the election in 2016, he was certainly divisive in 2016. I can absolutely see how that could sway someone who detests Trump (say, enough to attempt an assassination) to donate to their most credible competitor. Sometimes the enemy of your enemy is your friend.
That said, another user has posted evidence that maybe that donation was wrongly reported by the major news agencies. So I’ll put it in the category of “plausible” instead of “probable,” since it fits with my mental model of someone who claims to be Republican yet attempts to assassinate the Republican nominee for President in the first presidential election they’re eligible for.
And the same party that cries about stochastic terrorism now doesn’t believe it either.
Well done.
Every accusation is a confession with these assholes.
Also…no one in the history of ranged weapons has ever trained for the ear. Center mass to drop. This was a full on photo op
