politics
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
view the rest of the comments
So…. Why then? Was he one of those rare conservatives that don’t like Trump? I think I’ve only ever met maybe one or two.
I think, looking at what has been published on him, it's pretty clear as to why he shot Trump. For one, his personality lended itself to a hero complex. He was really nice, shy, intelligent, informed, and helpful. He clearly had respect for the Republican party, but given the info on his friend group, it was likely due to peer pressure. This is mostly made obvious by his political donation to the Progressive Turnout Project he made. A project that no conservative really should want to encourage.
In all likelihood, this guy saw the direction the States was headed in and realized there was no way to stop it from imploding without resorting to extreme political violence. I imagined he was upset with the fact that he wouldn't be able to do much through official channels in his life, so he made the ultimate sacrifice to will the change himself. That's why this guy's a hero in my books, not because he took a shot at Trump, but because he realized there's nothing any of us normies can do about the States' political situation through normal means, so he went above and beyond. He probably spent some time weighing the options as to whom to shoot, and realized Trump was the better pick.
this kind of speculation is pointless until more evidence is revealed.
I do wonder how much improvement there would be in the political situation in the US if Fox and the other channels spewing right-wing lies and fearmongering garbage went off the air?
There's a Dr Who episode "The Long Game" from 2005 that kinda covers this.
While I'm sure there would be a net positive, it's also a completely absurd hypothetical. To get rid of hateful and rightwing propaganda networks, you'd have to completely change the political donor system in the US. You'd have to change the political landscape, you'd have to change the population, the rules on election and numerous other things.
You can't just get rid of something that's so beneficial to those in power. You have to completely remove that power in its entirety.
Your opinion isn't based on anything... The conversation around that single, small donation to a "Progressive" cause is developing. Last I heard, speculation was that it was a known very spammy PAC and it was asking some ambiguous, more centrist survey question and then you could donate. People will turn their backs to a mountain of evidence to focus on a Pebble on the ground behind them.
Now reasonable assumption is A) he was tricked into donating to a cause he would never knowingly support B) He meant to graze and wound, but not kill to try to make trump a martyr C) He actually wanted to kill trump to incite a civil war or race war and figured trump would be down to be the pin on the grenade because he was delusional D) he was straight up mentally ill and he wanted trump to go meet Jesus quickly to get a medal or some shit.
What are you talking about dude? Have you read anything regarding the shooter?
https://www.campaignfinanceonline.pa.gov/Pages/CFReportSearch.aspx
Please update your mental narrative or stop wildly speculating and let the investigation run its course. If you want to sluthe yourself or "do your own research" here is the site to look up PA political donations, it was a simple google search away.
The donation in question was not made by the shooter, but by a different individual with a similar name 3 years ago. The shooter would have been 17 at the time, and thus unable to make such a contribtion.
~~Side note, he didn't make that donation. It would have been illegal as he was 17 at the time, and the donation came from a 60+ year old in Philadelphia with the name Thomas Crooks, not his town of Bethel Park.~~
Apparently that little bit of trivia doesn't actually apply to the story, and the shooter did make the donation.
Seems like he did it
Thanks, I had seen the posts that they referenced floating around Lemmy
Yeah, it would have been nice if he hadn't done the donation.
Need a source on that or I'll just assume you're lying through your teeth. As literally every major news outlet is reporting he made that donation
I saw some posts about it yesterday on Lemmy, but apparently upon further digging there is a 69 year old Thomas Crooks of Pittsburgh, but he didn't make the donation. The donation was marked as coming from Pittsburgh which is close to Bethel Park. I've edited my post.
Your edit correct (most of this is directed at the user you are replying to) the kid from this weekend was 20 and the donation was made 3 years ago. It would have been illegal for him to make a campaign contribution at the age of 17, there is also a PA gov website that you can look up public campaign donations on (Its where this info came from). Im not able to locate the exact page, but screenshots have been circulating for a bit. In addition, there are updates that the FBI has gotten into his phone and the investigations interviews with his friends and family are starting to hit the news cycle.
Just be open minded that this is a developing story and that the general narrative will change.
Cynicism will definitely lead you to civil war. Go read up on the Spanish civil war. Their experience might come in handy. Political violence won't help you get out of this polarized mess, it will drag you in deeper.
If radical change is what's necessary. Then civil wars should be on the table. Besides, I'm sure the shooter's goal wasn't to depolarize the masses.
"civil war" in this country = the US military vs the side that gets obliterated inside of 1 week. the question is which side they will pick
Still, that sort of sacrifice should be expected if you want to make changes in your country (the US)
it's the people who are trying to STOP change, or undo it, who are talking about civil war.
Yah I mean, if your narrow understanding of what war is is Trumpets trying to take over the white house than yah, I guess one would hate the idea of using violence for the greater good.
so...given the implication that you have a broad comprehensive understanding of war, your solution is that we should just assassinate people we disagree with? make them martyrs?
gtfo dude