Mass Shooting El Paso...

[KingsGambit]

I hear that a lot from his supporters who claim he's just acting like a wishy-washy oaf, but in reality he's really a genius playing 4-D chess against his opponents. Yet this doesn't really look smart to me. For one thing, does he really know for sure the Dems won't call his bluff? Secondly, isn't he just ostracizing his political base, especially so close to election?

I don't think he is any such mastermind. Nonetheless, I don't think he risks losing any goodwill on the right because he has always been wishy washy on gun control and it hasn't cost him his base.

[Tassman]

He also ranted about a need for free health care and a universal basic income so I guess that makes the Democratic party culpable as well

You "guess" wrong. It is the Trump language of "invasion" by Hispanics, which is the distinguishing feature of the El Paso shooter's Manifesto. This is the reason he drove 600 miles from Dallas...to shoot up Hispanics. It is Trump, not the Democrat Party, who routinely denigrates the humanity of anyone who isn’t white. This is the man who first came into public view for discriminating against African Americans in housing and who most recently called on four women of color to “go back” to where they came from. The Manifesto and behavior of the shooter echo these sentiments.

[Sparko]

It is interesting, when a shooter is a racist or white nationalist, the media immediately blames Trump. Like this shooter. Yet, when the shooter is a liberal socialist like the Dayton shooter, you don't hear a peep out of the MSM.

I think it is wrong to assign blame to anyone or any party when these shootings happen. These guys are sick, no matter what side their political views lay on. You can't blame Republicans, Democrats, or Socialists for these sick, disturbed people. There are many factors that go into motivating someone who is mentally disturbed to act like this.

[Adrift]

I don't particularly disagree - although Trump isn't to blame when you get what you paid for - and the next day realize it wasn't really what you wanted.

And yeah, it's more divided than it's been in seventy plus years - and I've heard the argument that it was the last seventy years that were weird, not the move back to divisiveness. But I think that's actually on Obama's door, not Trump's. Obama lit the fuse when he removed the Democrat's vanguard of nearly thirty years with no replacement in sight. It didn't initially cause a problem - Clinton was the successor designate and all would be right with the world - until she couldn't get elected.

Now all the varied - and often mutually exclusive - groups that had been in the back of the Democrat bus awaiting their turn start panicking and grabbing for that brass ring before it gets away. The party becomes a free-for-all of hopeless causes that want their piece of pie NOW. Which means Trump must go because conservatives are evil and won't give every nut job ideology a free ride. That, more than anything about Trump himself, pushed the party WAY far left - and has made it horribly unstable.

Pelosi does NOT have control of the House (O'Neill must be on spin dry in his grave by now) - and no one really has a leash on the party, either. The entire Democrat field is ridiculously large and promising a pot in every chicken at this point - they've gone totally nuts. Half the crap they are proposing won't fly with even the left leaning moderates - you can forget the independents - and Trump will be gleefully flinging it back in their faces about a year from now. I actually think it's gone too far and the chances of the eventual nominee righting him/herself in the next twelve months are ridiculously low.

It's too soon to call - but at this point, it looks like it's Trump's election to lose. The Democrats have nothing significant in their field and will have destroyed what they do have by January. Seriously - they are having debates six MONTHS before the primaries! The only candidate in their field that would actually be difficult for Trump to run against is Marianne Williamson, who has zero chance of being the nominee and probably couldn't beat Trump even if he didn't campaign (but she would be a nightmare for him to run against - it's possibly the only apparent scenario where Trump could muck up and lose).

The funny part? Trump is the best thing going for the Democratic Party right now - the only thing uniting them is their irrational hatred of Trump!

I truly think the biggest question is whether or not the Democratic party will implode before or after the 2020 general election. I wouldn't take bets either way - there are so many strains on that party right now that it's impossible to tell which one will give first.

I don't particularly disagree with any of this, though I'm not sure the thing about Obama is necessarily true. Seems to me that though elements on both the left and right have been moving further apart for some time now, for a lot of left-leaning types, Obama was seen as too much of a compromiser, and didn't go nearly as far as they expected him to. In many ways they saw his administration as a bit of a continuation of Bush's, especially as far as foreign policy was concerned (and some of his social issues too). Trump stomping in right after the promised hope that was Obama has acted as a major catalyst for intense divisiveness. The far left and far right have become more vocally and physically agitated, and people who were center-left/center-right are also responding by moving further to the peripheries. There's a major us vs. them dynamic happening in the US now, and while I agree that this will work in Trump's favor in the short term (I believe he'll win reelection), I believe there will be MAJOR push-back in the future. I wonder if we'll ever see a time when things will level out, or if things will just continue to get more and more extreme.

[JimL]

It is interesting, when a shooter is a racist or white nationalist, the media immediately blames Trump. Like this shooter. Yet, when the shooter is a liberal socialist like the Dayton shooter, you don't hear a peep out of the MSM.

I think it is wrong to assign blame to anyone or any party when these shootings happen. These guys are sick, no matter what side their political views lay on. You can't blame Republicans, Democrats, or Socialists for these sick, disturbed people. There are many factors that go into motivating someone who is mentally disturbed to act like this.

The shooters are not all mentally ill such as the Dayton shooter seems to have been. There are the mentally ill out there, people who hear voices and such, but they are not to be confused with the white supremacists, the KKK, white nationalists etc etc. You don't have to be mentally ill in order to have white supremacist views or to act on them. The U.S has no more mental illness than other countries do, we just have a lot more guns and a lot more divisivness and hatred.

[Bill the Cat]

The shooters are not all mentally ill such as the Dayton shooter seems to have been.

He was a liberal, so that qualifies.

There are the mentally ill out there, people who hear voices and such, but they are not to be confused with the white supremacists, the KKK, white nationalists etc etc. You don't have to be mentally ill in order to have white supremacist views or to act on them. The U.S has no more mental illness than other countries do, we just have a lot more guns and a lot more divisivness and hatred.

It seems to me that the more heterogenous a country is, the worse the division becomes. That would explain the lower violent crime rates of relatively homogenous countries like the Scandinavian countries. The only exception I see to that is places like the Congo.

[JimL]

He was a liberal, so that qualifies.



It seems to me that the more heterogenous a country is, the worse the division becomes. That would explain the lower violent crime rates of relatively homogenous countries like the Scandinavian countries. The only exception I see to that is places like the Congo.

And by homogenous I take you to mean, white. You don't have a problem for instance with the white Irish, English, Hungarians, Poles, Italians etc etc, but people of color should not apply. Correct?

[Zymologist]

And by homogenous I take you to mean, white. You don't have a problem for instance with the white Irish, English, Hungarians, Poles, Italians etc etc, but people of color should not apply. Correct?

Sounding pretty racist there, Jim.

[Bill the Cat]

You "guess" wrong. It is the Trump language of "invasion" by Hispanics, which is the distinguishing feature of the El Paso shooter's Manifesto.

He stresses that he has maintained his white supremacist ideology for many years, predating President Trump and his 2016 campaign, which he says did not influence his reasons for carrying out the attack.

This is the reason he drove 600 miles from Dallas...to shoot up Hispanics.

Right.

It is Trump, not the Democrat Party, who routinely denigrates the humanity of anyone who isn’t white.

Blatant leftist lies. But no surprise considering the source. Victim mentality on steroids.

This is the man who first came into public view for discriminating against African Americans in housing

Really? Was his company ever found guilty? And what was his company's response to that settled lawsuit? They made the Urban League an intermediary for qualified minority applicants. Sounds like a good solution to the problem.

and who most recently called on four women of color to “go back” to where they came from.

No. He told 4 loud mouthed socialist anti-Semites to go back to where they came from. That they happen to be minorities was a side effect. He similarly has slammed Nancy Pelosi and Chuckles Schumer for their districts.

The Manifesto and behavior of the shooter echo these sentiments.

Only at a very surface level, with every statement of Trump's stretched beyond recognition by the leftist news media, which I know is enough for you to believe Trump himself wrote the manifesto for the shooter.

[Bill the Cat]

And by homogenous I take you to mean, white.

No, dumbass. I mean homogenous in race, culture, etc. Not the melting pot the US has been for nearly all of its history.

You don't have a problem for instance with the white Irish, English, Hungarians, Poles, Italians etc etc, but people of color should not apply. Correct?

God, you are an asshat. I don't have a problem with anyone who isn't a moron. Oh, and I am part Blackfoot Indian too, so go stick your assumptions up your colonizing rear.

[JimL]

Sounding pretty racist there, Jim.

Yes, BtC does come off as racist there.

[Zymologist]

Yes, BtC does come off as racist there.

Very clever. One person sounded racist in that exchange, and it wasn't Bill.

[Bill the Cat]

Yes, BtC does come off as racist there.

You're the racist jackass that equated homogeny with white.

[Sparko]

The shooters are not all mentally ill such as the Dayton shooter seems to have been. There are the mentally ill out there, people who hear voices and such, but they are not to be confused with the white supremacists, the KKK, white nationalists etc etc. You don't have to be mentally ill in order to have white supremacist views or to act on them. The U.S has no more mental illness than other countries do, we just have a lot more guns and a lot more divisivness and hatred.

Some shooter who has some racist leanings is not the same as an actual white supremacist, like McVeigh was. These are teenagers who are reading crap online, and are mentally disturbed enough to go out and start shooting up people. They are not sane.

And people like you and the MSM who use situations like this as a club to attack Trump and conservatives is a completely despicable political move. Even here you are dismissing the Dayton shooter as "mentally ill" but not the El Paso shooter. Why? Because the Dayton shooter was liberal and the El Paso shooter wasn't. Just grow up JimL.

[Cow Poke]

How can one put spin on the actual words Trump uses...

A) By taking them out of context. Context includes what was said before and after, facial expression, tone of voice, audience...
2) By viewing them through the lens of hate