Options

Shooting at congressional baseball practice in Alexandria, Virginia

1222324252628»

Posts

  • Options
    override367override367 ALL minions Registered User regular
    edited June 2017
    Nyysjan wrote: »
    SeñorAmor wrote: »
    TryCatcher wrote: »
    Back on topic for a second, the NYTimes sure rushed to blame Sanders;

    Sanders' most fanatical followers are scary. Sanders is a good guy. But he can't control his angriest followers. They are projecting something on him that he really isn't, like he's some sort of revolutionary.

    Anyone's most fanatical followers are scary. That's why they're called fanatical.

    Sanders almost certainly has some really fucked up supporters. So do Trump and Clinton and Marcon and Merkel.

    I don't believe Clinton has fanatical followers. That's one of the problems with her campaign, really. Even her supporters were like "She's competent and sane, so she's fine." Merkel isn't really followed by fanatics either. Don't know much about Marcon - he seems to be inspiring, but I don't speak French so I don't really know. Trump's followers are a thousand times more fanatical than Sanders'.

    She had anti-semites voting for her, just because they were Democrat and didn't want a Jew in the white house.
    Those are not fanatical Clinton followers.
    They might be fanatics, but not fanatical about Clinton.

    How's that different? In both cases, neither of their fanaticism can be traced to the person they support

    the difference with the right wing is that it's actually possible to draw a straight line between their positions and violence

    Sanders and Clinton are both wholeheartedly anti violence

    override367 on
  • Options
    Spaten OptimatorSpaten Optimator Smooth Operator Registered User regular
    edited June 2017
    TryCatcher wrote: »
    Back on topic for a second, the NYTimes sure rushed to blame Sanders;
    But long before the shooting on Wednesday, some of Mr. Sanders’s supporters had earned a belligerent reputation for their criticism of Hillary Clinton, the Democratic Party and others who they believed disagreed with their ideas. Sanders fans, sometimes referred to derogatorily as “Bernie Bros” or “Bernie Bots,” at times harassed reporters covering Mr. Sanders and flooded social media with angry posts directed at the “corporate media,” a term often used by the senator.

    The suspect in the shooting in Virginia put a new spotlight on the rage buried in some corners of the progressive left.
    What? The strongest attacks against Trump now are coming from the centrists on the Dem party.

    Yamiche Alcindor wrote several pieces critical of Bernie and his supporters in particular over the last year. She's using the incident to grind that axe again. Not that it doesn't make this column any less reprehensible.

    Spaten Optimator on
  • Options
    TryCatcherTryCatcher Registered User regular
    Nyysjan wrote: »
    SeñorAmor wrote: »
    TryCatcher wrote: »
    Back on topic for a second, the NYTimes sure rushed to blame Sanders;

    Sanders' most fanatical followers are scary. Sanders is a good guy. But he can't control his angriest followers. They are projecting something on him that he really isn't, like he's some sort of revolutionary.

    Anyone's most fanatical followers are scary. That's why they're called fanatical.

    Sanders almost certainly has some really fucked up supporters. So do Trump and Clinton and Marcon and Merkel.

    I don't believe Clinton has fanatical followers. That's one of the problems with her campaign, really. Even her supporters were like "She's competent and sane, so she's fine." Merkel isn't really followed by fanatics either. Don't know much about Marcon - he seems to be inspiring, but I don't speak French so I don't really know. Trump's followers are a thousand times more fanatical than Sanders'.

    She had anti-semites voting for her, just because they were Democrat and didn't want a Jew in the white house.
    Those are not fanatical Clinton followers.
    They might be fanatics, but not fanatical about Clinton.

    How's that different? In both cases, neither of their fanaticism can be traced to the person they support

    the difference with the right wing is that it's actually possible to draw a straight line between their positions and violence

    Sanders and Clinton are both wholeheartedly anti violence

    The argument of Trump supporters is that any call to say that Trump as President or the GOP are illegitimate is by definition a call to violence.

  • Options
    PantsBPantsB Fake Thomas Jefferson Registered User regular
    edited June 2017
    Nyysjan wrote: »
    SeñorAmor wrote: »
    TryCatcher wrote: »
    Back on topic for a second, the NYTimes sure rushed to blame Sanders;

    Sanders' most fanatical followers are scary. Sanders is a good guy. But he can't control his angriest followers. They are projecting something on him that he really isn't, like he's some sort of revolutionary.

    Anyone's most fanatical followers are scary. That's why they're called fanatical.

    Sanders almost certainly has some really fucked up supporters. So do Trump and Clinton and Marcon and Merkel.

    I don't believe Clinton has fanatical followers. That's one of the problems with her campaign, really. Even her supporters were like "She's competent and sane, so she's fine." Merkel isn't really followed by fanatics either. Don't know much about Marcon - he seems to be inspiring, but I don't speak French so I don't really know. Trump's followers are a thousand times more fanatical than Sanders'.

    She had anti-semites voting for her, just because they were Democrat and didn't want a Jew in the white house.
    Those are not fanatical Clinton followers.
    They might be fanatics, but not fanatical about Clinton.

    How's that different? In both cases, neither of their fanaticism can be traced to the person they support

    the difference with the right wing is that it's actually possible to draw a straight line between their positions and violence

    Sanders and Clinton are both wholeheartedly anti violence

    Sanders led his followers deep into tin foil hat, conspiracy bullshit land during the primaries. He would say he still had a chance when he absolutely knew it was over, and attacked sources of information that contradicted him. An imaginary horde of enemies were invented that were conspiring against him in order to obscure that he had lost and to justify his continued campaigning, and stark good and evil rhetoric was used.

    That's unhealthy. Its not like Trump, definitely. But you still empower and encourage feelings of grievance and anger when you do that and things don't turn out like your leader said it would. Most people don't lash out violently from that stuff, but its not like there weren't violent threats during the primaries.

    Again, its not Trump level and even the GOP baseline tends to be more violent. But conspiracy theory hyperbolic rhetoric isn't only inciting violence and harassment when it comes from the right and Sanders campaign was guilty of that too.

    PantsB on
    11793-1.png
    day9gosu.png
    QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+
  • Options
    override367override367 ALL minions Registered User regular
    I really don't agree

    I think it's a call to end the electoral college

    something I'm not hearing from enough Democrats for whatever reason but that's off topic

  • Options
    NyysjanNyysjan FinlandRegistered User regular
    Nyysjan wrote: »
    SeñorAmor wrote: »
    TryCatcher wrote: »
    Back on topic for a second, the NYTimes sure rushed to blame Sanders;

    Sanders' most fanatical followers are scary. Sanders is a good guy. But he can't control his angriest followers. They are projecting something on him that he really isn't, like he's some sort of revolutionary.

    Anyone's most fanatical followers are scary. That's why they're called fanatical.

    Sanders almost certainly has some really fucked up supporters. So do Trump and Clinton and Marcon and Merkel.

    I don't believe Clinton has fanatical followers. That's one of the problems with her campaign, really. Even her supporters were like "She's competent and sane, so she's fine." Merkel isn't really followed by fanatics either. Don't know much about Marcon - he seems to be inspiring, but I don't speak French so I don't really know. Trump's followers are a thousand times more fanatical than Sanders'.

    She had anti-semites voting for her, just because they were Democrat and didn't want a Jew in the white house.
    Those are not fanatical Clinton followers.
    They might be fanatics, but not fanatical about Clinton.

    How's that different? In both cases, neither of their fanaticism can be traced to the person they support

    the difference with the right wing is that it's actually possible to draw a straight line between their positions and violence

    Sanders and Clinton are both wholeheartedly anti violence
    It's different in that people largely are not fanatical followers of Clinton.
    She simply does not inspire people like Sanders, or Trump do.
    Which Celestial Badger pointed out, Jungleroomx brought up anti semites, to which i pointed that they were not fanatics about Clinton (if they were fanatics about anything, there is such a thing as casual bigotry).

  • Options
    Spaten OptimatorSpaten Optimator Smooth Operator Registered User regular
    PantsB wrote: »
    Sanders led his followers deep into tin foil hat, conspiracy bullshit land during the primaries. He would say he still had a chance when he absolutely knew it was over, and attacked sources of information that contradicted him.

    How does not conceding on a timeline convenient for your preferred candidate suddenly make him Alex Jones? You're making some pretty sweeping claims without any evidence.

  • Options
    JacobkoshJacobkosh Gamble a stamp. I can show you how to be a real man!Moderator mod
    This thread is wandering pretty far afield of its remit. Let's refocus on news about the case rather than on attempting to catalogue and assign blame for every instance of political violence ever.

  • Options
    TryCatcherTryCatcher Registered User regular
    Daily Caller has some more morbid details:
    James T. Hodgkinson, the shooter who opened fire on dozens of Republican congressmen and staffers at a baseball practice in Alexandria, Virginia, on Wednesday, had a list of Republican names in his pocket that was recovered by the FBI, The Daily Caller has learned.

    The news that the shooter had a list of names suggests the shooting was not a random outburst, but instead appears to be a premeditated political assassination.

    The list was written out on notepad paper and found in the shooter’s pocket, according to multiple sources with intimate knowledge of the situation, who spoke on condition of anonymity, citing the sensitivity of the investigation. The list of names included Alabama Rep. Mo Brooks, South Carolina Rep. Jeff Duncan and Arizona Rep. Trent Franks, TheDC has confirmed.

    The FBI has contacted at least one of the three congressmen to inform them of their inclusion on the list.

  • Options
    Mr KhanMr Khan Not Everyone WAHHHRegistered User regular
    TryCatcher wrote: »
    Daily Caller has some more morbid details:
    James T. Hodgkinson, the shooter who opened fire on dozens of Republican congressmen and staffers at a baseball practice in Alexandria, Virginia, on Wednesday, had a list of Republican names in his pocket that was recovered by the FBI, The Daily Caller has learned.

    The news that the shooter had a list of names suggests the shooting was not a random outburst, but instead appears to be a premeditated political assassination.

    The list was written out on notepad paper and found in the shooter’s pocket, according to multiple sources with intimate knowledge of the situation, who spoke on condition of anonymity, citing the sensitivity of the investigation. The list of names included Alabama Rep. Mo Brooks, South Carolina Rep. Jeff Duncan and Arizona Rep. Trent Franks, TheDC has confirmed.

    The FBI has contacted at least one of the three congressmen to inform them of their inclusion on the list.

    This is interesting. The story that he was basically camping out at the YMCA across from the field, looking at his laptop, makes me wonder. He must've been scouring social media feeds and figured out who was planning on practicing on the field that day, but why was he at that YMCA in the first place? Did he move to Alexandria because he had already resolved he was going to die by killing a bunch of Republicans and was just waiting for somebody to show up?

    It was very carefully calculated (had Scalise not been there, Capitol Police wouldn't have been, and Hodgkinson would have had free reign for probably 10 minutes or more until Alexandria PD showed up) to hit them when they were away from DC with its higher police presence but still more clumped together than they would have been if he had decided to just stay home in Illinois and head to the nearest GOP congressional town hall, but the question is where he got this information. Occam's Razor says social media, before you go into conspiracy theories that he had sources feeding him stuff, but why did he happen to hang out across the street from the specific place where the shooting happened, unless he knew all the way back when he moved out here that that was the field where the GOP practiced for the charity baseball game?

  • Options
    PreacherPreacher Registered User regular
    I was under the impression both parties practice there. Seems weird he'd have a specific list of people to kill, but be focused on that ball field? Like do all the congress people even do that game?

    I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.

    pleasepaypreacher.net
  • Options
    PantsBPantsB Fake Thomas Jefferson Registered User regular
    Conjecture but he was probably conflicted and psyching himself into doing it. I don't think there's much doubt he was targeting Republicans but I wouldn't be surprised if there was some suicide by cop going on too

    11793-1.png
    day9gosu.png
    QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+
  • Options
    CelestialBadgerCelestialBadger Registered User regular
    I wonder is Scalise was on the hit list or if it was opportunistic.

  • Options
    iTunesIsEviliTunesIsEvil Cornfield? Cornfield.Registered User regular
    I'mma take the Daily Caller's word with more than a grain of salt. Being started by Tucker Carlson kinda puts a bit of taint on things.

    Is there a better source carrying the same story?

  • Options
    Emissary42Emissary42 Registered User regular
    edited June 2017
    I'mma take the Daily Caller's word with more than a grain of salt. Being started by Tucker Carlson kinda puts a bit of taint on things.

    Is there a better source carrying the same story?

    A brief google search confirms independent verification by several news agencies, including some interviews with congressmen who were informed they were on the list.

    edit: Some other reporting on this from McClatchy, USA Today, and The New York Times.

    Emissary42 on
  • Options
    jothkijothki Registered User regular
    Preacher wrote: »
    I was under the impression both parties practice there. Seems weird he'd have a specific list of people to kill, but be focused on that ball field? Like do all the congress people even do that game?

    He may have just known that congresspeople tended to frequent that field, and decided to stake it out until someone who was on his list showed up.

  • Options
    SynthesisSynthesis Honda Today! Registered User regular
    SeñorAmor wrote: »
    TryCatcher wrote: »
    Back on topic for a second, the NYTimes sure rushed to blame Sanders;

    Sanders' most fanatical followers are scary. Sanders is a good guy. But he can't control his angriest followers. They are projecting something on him that he really isn't, like he's some sort of revolutionary.

    Anyone's most fanatical followers are scary. That's why they're called fanatical.

    Sanders almost certainly has some really fucked up supporters. So do Trump and Clinton and Marcon and Merkel.

    I don't believe Clinton has fanatical followers. That's one of the problems with her campaign, really. Even her supporters were like "She's competent and sane, so she's fine." Merkel isn't really followed by fanatics either. Don't know much about Marcon - he seems to be inspiring, but I don't speak French so I don't really know. Trump's followers are a thousand times more fanatical than Sanders'.

    Despite his smiling face and boyish charm, Pres. Macron has inherited--quite deliberately--a "centrist" bloc of pro-business, anti-labor followers, a minority of whom are absolutely considered "fanatics" by the long-established labor position in the country. Since I assume we're not going to tell whole of French labor "No, your opinion's don't count, not having trade unions is the new normal," that means he's followed by fanatics. His status as a neoliberal darling aside, I don't think Macron is in favor of obliterating ever last trade union in France (at the moment), so I don't think he agrees fully with his fanatics either.

    Chancellor Merkel has her own (if you'll excuse the expression) punishment-austerity-fetish-freak-show lurking in her shadow (they're a big part of shaping popular German images of Greek and Polish voters), even if her official stances aren't so obscene. Whether or not that ideological fringe are "fanatics", they're certainly disgusting, as is their promotion of what in any other context would be called "alternative facts" in further of some of her agendas. Are all of Merkel's votes from fanatics? Of course not, I don't even think that's true about Donald Trump. But I think you don't have to shave your head, or deny Eurasian genocide, to be a fanatic of some sort in Germany.

    Like they say, fanaticism stops being fanaticism the exact second the ideas sound pleasing. After that, it's "impassioned".

  • Options
    enlightenedbumenlightenedbum Registered User regular
    Scalise has been upgraded to "serious" condition.

    Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
  • Options
    enlightenedbumenlightenedbum Registered User regular
    Never want to take anything for granted, but seems like Scalise is out of the woods, he's been upgraded again to "fair" condition. Long period of recovery upcoming, obviously.

    Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
  • Options
    HenroidHenroid Mexican kicked from Immigration Thread Centrism is Racism :3Registered User regular
    Never want to take anything for granted, but seems like Scalise is out of the woods, he's been upgraded again to "fair" condition. Long period of recovery upcoming, obviously.
    Has he been lucid enough to make a statement?

  • Options
    Phoenix-DPhoenix-D Registered User regular
    Henroid wrote: »
    Never want to take anything for granted, but seems like Scalise is out of the woods, he's been upgraded again to "fair" condition. Long period of recovery upcoming, obviously.
    Has he been lucid enough to make a statement?

    Not sure what he'd say at this point. "Yep, rifle bullets hurt"?

  • Options
    JoeUserJoeUser Forum Santa Registered User regular
    Henroid wrote: »
    Never want to take anything for granted, but seems like Scalise is out of the woods, he's been upgraded again to "fair" condition. Long period of recovery upcoming, obviously.
    Has he been lucid enough to make a statement?

    I saw a report that he's been asking Congressmen about bills when they come visit, so he seems to be doing ok.

  • Options
    enlightenedbumenlightenedbum Registered User regular
    Henroid wrote: »
    Never want to take anything for granted, but seems like Scalise is out of the woods, he's been upgraded again to "fair" condition. Long period of recovery upcoming, obviously.
    Has he been lucid enough to make a statement?

    Just his staff/family via his twitter from what I've seen.

    Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
  • Options
    HenroidHenroid Mexican kicked from Immigration Thread Centrism is Racism :3Registered User regular
    JoeUser wrote: »
    Henroid wrote: »
    Never want to take anything for granted, but seems like Scalise is out of the woods, he's been upgraded again to "fair" condition. Long period of recovery upcoming, obviously.
    Has he been lucid enough to make a statement?

    I saw a report that he's been asking Congressmen about bills when they come visit, so he seems to be doing ok.
    Commendable that he's got his mind set on the job. I don't think anyone would hold it against him for taking it easy.

  • Options
    enlightenedbumenlightenedbum Registered User regular
    People's health care won't take itself away, after all.

    Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
  • Options
    shrykeshryke Member of the Beast Registered User regular
    People's health care won't take itself away, after all.

    "Dammit Steve, you have to pull through. We need you. Don't you understand, black people are voting!"

  • Options
    JoeUserJoeUser Forum Santa Registered User regular
  • Options
    autono-wally, erotibot300autono-wally, erotibot300 love machine Registered User regular
    Oh damn... hospital-acquired infections are no laughing matter.

    kFJhXwE.jpgkFJhXwE.jpg
  • Options
    kaidkaid Registered User regular
    Oh damn... hospital-acquired infections are no laughing matter.

    The infection from my dads second cancer surgery wound up being worse and more dangerous than the surgery itself. Given the nature of his injuries though it is not that surprising he is having infection issues though.

  • Options
    V1mV1m Registered User regular
    Oh damn... hospital-acquired infections are no laughing matter.

    Good job he has single-payer socialised medical insurance.

  • Options
    DevoutlyApatheticDevoutlyApathetic Registered User regular
    V1m wrote: »
    Oh damn... hospital-acquired infections are no laughing matter.

    Good job he has single-payer socialised medical insurance.

    He has an exchange plan as part of his employer provided benefits. All of congress who don't get their own plan elsewhere do.

    Which isn't what any of the things you just called it.

    Wait, it is medical insurance.

    Nod. Get treat. PSN: Quippish
  • Options
    V1mV1m Registered User regular
    Who is his employer again, remind me?

  • Options
    enlightenedbumenlightenedbum Registered User regular
    V1m wrote: »
    Who is his employer again, remind me?

    Technically the people of Louisiana's First Congressional District, but really Charles and David Koch.

    Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
  • Options
    V1mV1m Registered User regular
    V1m wrote: »
    Who is his employer again, remind me?

    Technically the people of Louisiana's First Congressional District, but really Charles and David Koch.

    Nice of them to fund his medical care.

  • Options
    So It GoesSo It Goes We keep moving...Registered User regular
    Sweet zings on a dude back in serious condition in the hospital, guys.

    Knock it off. We have a thread to discuss problems with healthcare in this country and this ain't it.

Sign In or Register to comment.