They were desperate to say that the killer of Kirk was a leftist? Wasn’t that kind of obvious the moment he was shot?
um, no? It's obvious he's a criminal and was very online. That's the only evidence we have at this point.
Three of the most prominent recent assassins fall into a dangerously growing threat. The Butler shooter, the Kirk killer and the United Health CEO killer.
Young White males immersed in online culture. The political world is in a mad dash to assign them into a binary category based on our two political parties even when their motivations don’t go there. Each has their own unique and disturbed motivations.
The US does not have the honesty nor the apolitical motivations to explore in a bipartisan fashion what is going on here. So they will continue. Everything must be political these days and our institutions that used to be assigned to understand threats like these are now hollowed out and purged of experts loyal to finding the truth.
um, no? It's obvious he's a criminal and was very online. That's the only evidence we have at this point.
Three of the most prominent recent assassins fall into a dangerously growing threat. The Butler shooter, the Kirk killer and the United Health CEO killer.
Young White males immersed in online culture. The political world is in a mad dash to assign them into a binary category based on our two political parties even when their motivations don’t go there. Each has their own unique and disturbed motivations.
The US does not have the honesty nor the apolitical motivations to explore in a bipartisan fashion what is going on here. So they will continue. Everything must be political these days and our institutions that used to be assigned to understand threats like these are now hollowed out and purged of experts loyal to finding the truth.
Young, white, male, and online is a hopelessly broad category. It includes a lot of posters on this message board, many of whom are perhaps trolls, but the vast majority of whom are not a threat to anyone's safety.
Crooks was trying to assassinate a candidate for President of the United States. It's hard to fathom that his motives were apolitical. Robinson is the strongest case for your argument, as he seems to be motivated by the Culture Wars more than a political position. Mangione's motives point to class warfare more than politics.
You make an interesting point about how politics muddied the waters, but you don't say much about how we arrived at this point. We want a political solution to this problem, don't we? Right now, we have some leaders calling for us to come together and overcome our differences (the Obama model) and we have way too much anger and outrage in our media and on our message boards.
I'm really skeptical that our institutions that solved crime (or were, in your words "assigned to understand" them) were much better in the past. It took forever to find the Unabomber. The Boston Marathon bombers were caught relatively quickly. Robinson surrendered in days. That last one was due to suspicions and cooperation from family members, sure...but it really boiled down to how the ubiquity of security cameras allows us to live in a surveillance state at will.
Three of the most prominent recent assassins fall into a dangerously growing threat. The Butler shooter, the Kirk killer and the United Health CEO killer.
Young White males immersed in online culture. The political world is in a mad dash to assign them into a binary category based on our two political parties even when their motivations don’t go there. Each has their own unique and disturbed motivations.
The US does not have the honesty nor the apolitical motivations to explore in a bipartisan fashion what is going on here. So they will continue. Everything must be political these days and our institutions that used to be assigned to understand threats like these are now hollowed out and purged of experts loyal to finding the truth.
Young, white, male, and online is a hopelessly broad category. It includes a lot of posters on this message board, many of whom are perhaps trolls, but the vast majority of whom are not a threat to anyone's safety.
Crooks was trying to assassinate a candidate for President of the United States. It's hard to fathom that his motives were apolitical. Robinson is the strongest case for your argument, as he seems to be motivated by the Culture Wars more than a political position. Mangione's motives point to class warfare more than politics.
You make an interesting point about how politics muddied the waters, but you don't say much about how we arrived at this point. We want a political solution to this problem, don't we? Right now, we have some leaders calling for us to come together and overcome our differences (the Obama model) and we have way too much anger and outrage in our media and on our message boards.
I'm really skeptical that our institutions that solved crime (or were, in your words "assigned to understand" them) were much better in the past. It took forever to find the Unabomber. The Boston Marathon bombers were caught relatively quickly. Robinson surrendered in days. That last one was due to suspicions and cooperation from family members, sure...but it really boiled down to how the ubiquity of security cameras allows us to live in a surveillance state at will.
Class warfare is a major part of the Democrat platform. Suggesting class warfare isnt political is silly.
Suggesting that a guy who killed one of the most prominent Republican voices for being "fascist" when the platform of the Democrat party has literally been calling everyone in the GOP a fascist for 10 years is pathologically dishonest.
Obama was the most divisive president in modern American history. Suggesting that coming together is the "Obama model" is just mental illness.
Young, white, male, and online is a hopelessly broad category. It includes a lot of posters on this message board, many of whom are perhaps trolls, but the vast majority of whom are not a threat to anyone's safety.
Crooks was trying to assassinate a candidate for President of the United States. It's hard to fathom that his motives were apolitical. Robinson is the strongest case for your argument, as he seems to be motivated by the Culture Wars more than a political position. Mangione's motives point to class warfare more than politics.
You make an interesting point about how politics muddied the waters, but you don't say much about how we arrived at this point. We want a political solution to this problem, don't we? Right now, we have some leaders calling for us to come together and overcome our differences (the Obama model) and we have way too much anger and outrage in our media and on our message boards.
I'm really skeptical that our institutions that solved crime (or were, in your words "assigned to understand" them) were much better in the past. It took forever to find the Unabomber. The Boston Marathon bombers were caught relatively quickly. Robinson surrendered in days. That last one was due to suspicions and cooperation from family members, sure...but it really boiled down to how the ubiquity of security cameras allows us to live in a surveillance state at will.
Class warfare is a major part of the Democrat platform. Suggesting class warfare isnt political is silly.
Suggesting that a guy who killed one of the most prominent Republican voices for being "fascist" when the platform of the Democrat party has literally been calling everyone in the GOP a fascist for 10 years is pathologically dishonest.
Obama was the most divisive president in modern American history. Suggesting that coming together is the "Obama model" is just mental illness.
Class warfare is a major part of the Democrat platform. Suggesting class warfare isnt political is silly.
Suggesting that a guy who killed one of the most prominent Republican voices for being "fascist" when the platform of the Democrat party has literally been calling everyone in the GOP a fascist for 10 years is pathologically dishonest.
Obama was the most divisive president in modern American history. Suggesting that coming together is the "Obama model" is just mental illness.
how r u today, honey
Still doing better than you by every conceivable metric, sweetie.
You missed the point. The right was SCREAMING that the left was responsible for the murder before they knew who did it. They were trying desperately from the beginning to paint the killer as a leftist. The point JK was making is that it doesn't matter what the killer's identity was, the right would use it for political gain no matter what.
They were desperate to say that the killer of Kirk was a leftist? Wasn’t that kind of obvious the moment he was shot?
That would be someone saying I’m desperate to have proof Lia Thomas is a male when I know that from the beginning without proof. It’s just obvious.
It was not obvious at all, actually. Lots of these types of shooters are apolitical and just like to cause chaos. Screaming that the left was responsible before the identity of the shooter was known is just as reprehensible as whatever you think Jimmy Kimmel did.
They threatened them because Kimmel violated FCC rules.
If you don’t like it, write Carr a strongly worded letter.
FCC Rules: “The FCC is prohibited by law from engaging in censorship or infringing on First Amendment rights of the press. It is, however, illegal for broadcasters to intentionally distort the news, and the FCC may acton complaints if there is documented evidence of such behavior from persons with direct personal knowledge.”
“The FCC has had a policy against "news distortion" in over-the-air broadcast (local TV and radio stations) news for over 50 years. Cable news networks, newspapers or newsletters (whether online or print), social media platforms, online-only streaming outlets, or any other non-broadcast news platform are outside of the FCC's jurisdiction with respect to news distortion.”
They were desperate to say that the killer of Kirk was a leftist? Wasn’t that kind of obvious the moment he was shot?
That would be someone saying I’m desperate to have proof Lia Thomas is a male when I know that from the beginning without proof. It’s just obvious.
It was not obvious at all, actually. Lots of these types of shooters are apolitical and just like to cause chaos. Screaming that the left was responsible before the identity of the shooter was known is just as reprehensible as whatever you think Jimmy Kimmel did.
It was not obvious at all, actually. Lots of these types of shooters are apolitical and just like to cause chaos. Screaming that the left was responsible before the identity of the shooter was known is just as reprehensible as whatever you think Jimmy Kimmel did.
Oh look a "tolerant" liberal using gay as a slur. How unsurprising....
i didn't mean it as a slur. meant it as a compliment. I'm gay and I've been enjoying our rat a tat dialogue and have been becoming more and more attracted to you tbh. not a joke.
As you guys fight over white on white crime. I just want to say all of you are fools.
The left did this and the right did that. While the people in power get richer and you clowns fight over scraps while your rights are being taken away.
Grow up already and stop fighting each other over opinions which will make no one the wiser at the end of the day.
Everyone should go read the constitution and see how far we as a people have drifted and work together to build this nation for the people by the people, not follow rightwing or left wing propaganda. Neither side cares for you and if you died today there would be no memorial for you. You will fade like your opinions. Life will go on.
They were desperate to say that the killer of Kirk was a leftist? Wasn’t that kind of obvious the moment he was shot?
um, no? It's obvious he's a criminal and was very online. That's the only evidence we have at this point.
Political assassins often come from the culture or even organisations of those they assassinate. They believe they have been betrayed. It was a Hindu who killed Ghandi, a Muslim who killed Anwar Sadat, an Israeli who killed Rabin. The would-be assassins of Trump were registered Republicans. It cannot be assumed the killer of Charlie Kirk is left-wing, only that he wanted to kill Kirk for reasons not yet established.
um, no? It's obvious he's a criminal and was very online. That's the only evidence we have at this point.
Political assassins often come from the culture or even organisations of those they assassinate. They believe they have been betrayed. It was a Hindu who killed Ghandi, a Muslim who killed Anwar Sadat, an Israeli who killed Rabin. The would-be assassins of Trump were registered Republicans. It cannot be assumed the killer of Charlie Kirk is left-wing, only that he wanted to kill Kirk for reasons not yet established.
Only leftists and liars still pretend the motive isnt established.
Young, white, male, and online is a hopelessly broad category. It includes a lot of posters on this message board, many of whom are perhaps trolls, but the vast majority of whom are not a threat to anyone's safety.
Crooks was trying to assassinate a candidate for President of the United States. It's hard to fathom that his motives were apolitical. Robinson is the strongest case for your argument, as he seems to be motivated by the Culture Wars more than a political position. Mangione's motives point to class warfare more than politics.
You make an interesting point about how politics muddied the waters, but you don't say much about how we arrived at this point. We want a political solution to this problem, don't we? Right now, we have some leaders calling for us to come together and overcome our differences (the Obama model) and we have way too much anger and outrage in our media and on our message boards.
I'm really skeptical that our institutions that solved crime (or were, in your words "assigned to understand" them) were much better in the past. It took forever to find the Unabomber. The Boston Marathon bombers were caught relatively quickly. Robinson surrendered in days. That last one was due to suspicions and cooperation from family members, sure...but it really boiled down to how the ubiquity of security cameras allows us to live in a surveillance state at will.
Class warfare is a major part of the Democrat platform. Suggesting class warfare isnt political is silly.
Suggesting that a guy who killed one of the most prominent Republican voices for being "fascist" when the platform of the Democrat party has literally been calling everyone in the GOP a fascist for 10 years is pathologically dishonest.
Obama was the most divisive president in modern American history. Suggesting that coming together is the "Obama model" is just mental illness.
Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha please show the video of Obama or Brandon screaming Hate Speech. Then watch tRump everyday and today scream hate speech. I'll wait while you find your receipt 🧾