Nov 2023 Mod notice:
There may be other, more specific, threads about some aspects of US politics, but this one tends to act as a hub for all sorts of related news and information, so it's usually one of the busiest OTC threads.
If you're new to OTC, it's worth reading the Introduction to On-Topic Conversations
and the On-Topic Conversations debate guidelines
before posting here.
Rumor-based, fear-mongering and/or inflammatory statements that damage the quality of the thread will be thumped. Off-topic posts will also be thumped. Repeat offenders may be suspended.
If time spent moderating this thread remains a distraction from moderation of the wiki itself, the thread will need to be locked. We want to avoid that, so please follow the forum rules
when posting here.
In line with the general forum rules, 'gravedancing' is prohibited here. If you're celebrating someone's death or hoping that they die, your post will get thumped. This rule applies regardless of what the person you're discussing has said or done.
Edited by Mrph1 on Nov 30th 2023 at 11:03:59 AM
You're right. Now the GOP us suggesting that Congressman should be allowed to carry weapons.
Ignoring the fact that there were already armed officers there.
The point wasn't that Rodgers was inspired by the GOP directly, but that a lot of the discourse and talking points Rodgers espoused in his manifestos have their roots in right-wing talking points and implicit messages in their statements. The alt-right is really just a new way of presenting reactionary far-right ideas to make them "cool" and "edgy".
There is a very well-documented history of the GOP appealing to the racial anxieties of white voters in order to gain political leverage (which yes, on some level does include the dangers minorities pose to white women), a strategy that GOP strategists have also admitted to in the past. So it isn't merely an assumption.
I should also mention that we have discussed the bigotry and hipocrisy of certain segments of the left multiple times, but that's not particularly relevant to the discussion and just comes across as a deflection.
edited 14th Jun '17 11:44:09 AM by Draghinazzo
Well, one of their just-barely-shy-of-overt goals is to militarize U.S. culture, making sure that white America is constantly armed and trigger-happy with respect to defending its privilege. In this way, the Second Amendment will come to supersede the First.
edited 14th Jun '17 11:51:33 AM by Fighteer
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"I said "give a shit about," not "propose gun control in response to." The specific case here being their calls for unity and decrying of Democrats as responsible for the shooter, when you can be damn well certain they do ever6thing in their power to sweep right-wing shooters' connections to them under the rug, just as you are doing in response to the Rodgers example.
@Tactical: Some members of the GOP are definitely calling him a terrorist. That said, from what I recall that black ex-marine who shot (and killed!) a bunch of police in Dallas and the handful of followup imitators were only occasionally characterized as terrorists; it's frequently little more than a dogwhistle for "Muslims", as opposed to black nationalists, revolutionary leftists, right wing militia groups, the KKK, and so on.
They certainly aren't falling back on the characterization of the attacker as a lone wolf, and are definitely trying to pin it on the democrats. Meanwhile some democrats are toying with the idea of trying to pass the blame to Sanders and other leftists in the party coalition because the entire organization is still frozen in the goddamn primaries.
edited 14th Jun '17 12:33:19 PM by CaptainCapsase
I generally stay out of the political threads, but I would like to mention a few points, from a minority (on this site, at least) point of view:
1) It's far too early to call for gun control when we don't know how Mr. Hodgkinson obtained his firearms and whether he violated the current laws. If he was already breaking the law when he got them then obviously more gun control laws wouldn't have deterred him much. One thing that is clear is that if the ballpark had been a "gun free zone" that required the capitol police to leave their firearms behind while guarding Representative Scalise then far more people would have been injured or killed.
2) Yes, this was an act of terrorism, just not Islamic terrorism. Mr. Hodgkinson appears to have been politically active for the Bernie Sanders campaign and photos have been found of him holding anti-Republican signs at protests. He was part of anti-Republican online discussion groups like "Terminate the Republican Party" on Facebook. He asked specifically if it were "Republicans or Democrats" on the field before opening fire. It seems clear he was targeting Republicans just because they were Republicans. If these facts are straight then it was a politically-motivated act of violence, and therefore terrorism.
3) While I don't personally blame Bernie Sanders (and credit to him for immediately denouncing violence) or anyone other than Mr. Hodgkinson specifically, it is difficult as a conservative to not see this shooting as at least in part a result of the overheated rhetoric that has been pouring out of "the Resistance" since President Trump's election. Personally I hope this results in something of a call on the Democrat/Progressive side to their own members/supporters to tone things down a little. I would like to see Republicans/Conservatives do the same.
No one is served by crying "Ruined Forever" over every action of the President. Sure, he's a buffoon, but I for one think the nation will survive his term.
edited 14th Jun '17 12:57:08 PM by Bense
Regarding 3), note that calls for violence from the right were vastly more prevalent during Barack Obama's terms and were almost never overtly censured by them. In fact, many in the GOP were tacitly or even openly encouraging them. So the "both sides do it" comparison is completely ludicrous.
edited 14th Jun '17 1:03:25 PM by Fighteer
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"Yes, but the impetus to do so is 95% on the Republicans, not the Democrats, so calling on the Dems to be held responsible for rhetoric that the GOP uses far more often and loudly by several orders of magnitude is entirely misguided, at the most charitable interprettation, even with the afterthought of "oh, and Republicans too, I guess."
@Bense: It's not going to happen. This is, in essence, a struggle over the "soul" of America, and there's no longer any room for meaningful compromise to occur. Things will, in all likelihood, continue to escalate until somebody wins decisively enough to crush the other side's electoral potential by reducing the voting power of the opposing demographic blocs, or the system collapses entirely in a spectacular fashion.
In the left's case, we can at least hope that disenfranchisement would entail reforming the archaic electoral laws our political systems depend on which give an disproportionate voice to the rural states of the country, in contrast to the right, which needs to make the system even more unfair to achieve the same end.
edited 14th Jun '17 1:48:00 PM by CaptainCapsase
From what I've heard, the Democrats or Republicans question was from some random person who saw the baseball practicing, not the shooter- it's one of those things that quickly gets confused in the "fog of war".
And I don't really see how there's any need for apology or toning down of rhetoric. As I noted before, it's quite surprising to me that someone whose political rhetoric was about organizing at the ballot box and who was involved in politics would engage in political violence. It really seems like a first, as mass shooters, regardless of politics, are almost invariably loners whose political engagement was restricted to more extreme, conspiracy-theorist stuff, and who were shunned by those they interacted with.
No, Gun Free Zones usually exempt police, but there have been calls for them to be excluded too from places like churches and even schools.
Representative Scalise only had a security detail with him because he's the Majority Whip, and therefore in the Presidential Line of Succession. If he hadn't been present there likely would have been no armed officers present and things would have ended up a lot worse.

Nah, they're just using it as an excuse to silence their critics.