-
Our friends from the Johto Times are hosting a favorite Pokémon poll - and we'd love for you to participate! Click here for information on how to vote for your favorites!
Bernie Sanders supporter fires on congressional members at GOP baseball practice
- Thread starter twocows
- Start date
- 5,796
- Posts
- 8
- Years
- United States
- Seen Mar 7, 2021
Is it really necessary to add "Bernie Sanders supporter" to the title? Don't see how that adds to anything.
At least it didn't end as bad as it could've. The reports say there were children and other pedestrians nearby. :V
At least it didn't end as bad as it could've. The reports say there were children and other pedestrians nearby. :V
Last edited:
- 5,502
- Posts
- 9
- Years
- he/him
- Seen Jul 1, 2022
I completely agree. Just imagine how many threads we could start with "Donald Trump supporter".
The information that he was a Sanders supporter is relevant with regards to a potential motive (which I think, needless to say, is political). Additionally, Sanders has responded to the shooting, and that response has been linked in this thread; therefore it's directly relevant to the thread's topic.
This is an obvious politically-geared act which I'd easily go so far as to brand as terrorism. The political alignment of the shooter is entirely relevant.
This is an obvious politically-geared act which I'd easily go so far as to brand as terrorism. The political alignment of the shooter is entirely relevant.
Last edited:
I supported Bernie in the primaries and felt that it was relevant information to put in there, especially in light of the politically charged motive of the shooting. I also posted Senator Sanders' response, which I felt was appropriate given the circumstances. Typically, when headlining a story, you want to include the most relevant information in the headline. When you have GOP representatives being shot by one of their ideological opponents, that's extremely important contextual information; it helps you understand what's going on in the story and why people are reacting to it the way that they are. It's not as though this is an uncommon practice:
https://rollingout.com/2017/05/27/w...ter-kills-2-people-yelling-anti-muslim-slurs/
https://lawnewz.com/crazy/black-man...supporter-after-political-argument-escalated/
https://www.carbonated.tv/news/racist-trump-supporter-accused-of-killing-black-man-after-argument
Last edited:
- 10,682
- Posts
- 15
- Years
- California
- Seen Jun 30, 2018
The shooter had a history of violence, including gun violence, and was still allowed to own a gun. It seems that charges from some years ago weren't able to stick to him however so his official record up to this point wasn't as damning as it might have looked and didn't reflect exactly how dangerous this guy was. Not that I think it would have necessarily kept him from obtaining weapons because it's still pretty easy to get weapons in the US.
I'm just glad that only he was killed and everyone else who was injured will recover. I am worried about what will develop from this and the direction the country is going.
I'm just glad that only he was killed and everyone else who was injured will recover. I am worried about what will develop from this and the direction the country is going.
Varius
Very Problematic Human
- 36
- Posts
- 8
- Years
- The outer rings of Hell
- Seen Jun 24, 2017
I don't think there is any info regarding how he obtained the weapon, though. It could very likely be a stolen gun and there isn't much the state could do from preventing people from stealing guns or buying them from illegal sellers with gun control laws.
In my opinion, it was very likely he got the said weapon illegally considering that under Virginia law, people with felonies cannot legally own guns. Most violent crimes are felonies, are they not? Anyways, what we need to do is crack down on illegal gun sales first.
Edit: Apparently he had a permit. My bad.
The first one about the Portland Murderer was actually done by a Bernie supporter. Tim Pool explains it here. His motives were more or less religious due to his posting history of wanting to kill all monotheists.
Last edited:
- 10,682
- Posts
- 15
- Years
- California
- Seen Jun 30, 2018
The news is saying Scalise is still in the hospital and has had several surgeries. The early reports had made it seem like his injuries weren't so bad.
Regarding the gun, it was apparently legally purchased.
Talk around this shooting (inevitably) became pretty political pretty quickly. Since it was Republicans who were targeted some of them have taken to the offensive and have laid the blame on Democrats' rhetoric. (Though, surprisingly, Trump hasn't really joined in on that.) Personally, I don't see much basis for this accusation. There are some instances (like the Kathy Griffin beheading thing), but they seem sporadic at best and there is no sign of any violent rhetoric from any elected officials that I've seen. Compare that to, for instance, to the wink-and-nod threats and insinuations from Trump during the campaign toward protesters and you can see that if there is anything that Democrats and liberals are guilty of it's something the Republicans share.
Regarding the gun, it was apparently legally purchased.
Talk around this shooting (inevitably) became pretty political pretty quickly. Since it was Republicans who were targeted some of them have taken to the offensive and have laid the blame on Democrats' rhetoric. (Though, surprisingly, Trump hasn't really joined in on that.) Personally, I don't see much basis for this accusation. There are some instances (like the Kathy Griffin beheading thing), but they seem sporadic at best and there is no sign of any violent rhetoric from any elected officials that I've seen. Compare that to, for instance, to the wink-and-nod threats and insinuations from Trump during the campaign toward protesters and you can see that if there is anything that Democrats and liberals are guilty of it's something the Republicans share.
Somewhere_
i don't know where
- 4,493
- Posts
- 9
- Years
- somewhere (duh)
- Seen Jun 5, 2019
According to White House statements, Trump never actually visited Scalise. Its very disappointing.
- 11,359
- Posts
- 16
- Years
- Seen May 28, 2025
Wow... really? I have to say this surprises me - I would have figured that this of all things would have merited a visit from Trump himself. That being said, is Scalise even capable of receiving visitors at the moment?
Somewhere_
i don't know where
- 4,493
- Posts
- 9
- Years
- somewhere (duh)
- Seen Jun 5, 2019
That is very true... he has had multiple surgery. And truth be told, if I was shot 5 times I would not want any visitors aside from close family.
We will see in the next couple days I suppose depending on the recovery. Trump will look better if he does visit him, but unfortunately, Trump does not exactly always serve his own self-interest.
Also I made that post based on info I received this morning, so its very possible Trump has visited since then. I haven't looked at the news all day.
Varius
Very Problematic Human
- 36
- Posts
- 8
- Years
- The outer rings of Hell
- Seen Jun 24, 2017
Oh, I don't know, it's not like we just had an adaptation of the play "Julius Caesar" set up with a Caesar that looks like Trump play in New York, the aforementioned Kathy Griffin beheading, the constant cries of Trump being a fascist dictator rousing groups like Antifa, actual news publications calling for the execution of Donald Trump, calls from politicians to fight in the streets (granted, this has a different context but can easily be taken out of context), the calls to essentially bully his child Barron, calls by a famous rapper to rape the First Lady, depictions of him being shot in another rapper's music video, and the complete unprecedented levels vilification of Trump and his supporters by the mainstream media.
Seriously, this president has achieved the highest levels of vilification within a few months in office than any president during their entire administration since Carter. Do you honestly not expect that the dehumanization of a person or of people wouldn't lead to violence? This is exactly how Goebbel's propaganda would work; dehumanize the group or the person and people will justify their violence against said group or person.
Last edited:
- 78
- Posts
- 8
- Years
- Seen Apr 24, 2025
True story. The president to recieve the most death threats was President Obama as well as undeserved villification.
Right wingers, especially Trump, questioned Obama's nationality, and pursued a smear campaign to depict the President as a foreigner without ANY evidence to support claims. This was an extreme form of villification, WITHOUT ANY FACT-BASED REASON. This was merely an exercise of political opportunism to discredit a black presidential candidate/president.
Trump's "villification" is in actuality criticism based directly upon his own vilifying and persecutory actions, like leading the front to question President Obama's "origins".
Donald Trump's criticism has been on the basis of his actions, including racism and xenophobia when in comes to calling Mexican's rapists, interrogating black president's origins, but also including sexism, anti-disability, homophobia, islamophobia, etc. When you villify or marginalize groups of people, you effectively have vilified yourself.
The backlash Trump has received by many individuals is not "vilification" but speaking out against their own vilification initiated by Trump which has real psychological and material impacts on their lives through political and societal impacts. Trump (and family) have repeatedly tried to flip the script by stating that Trump has been attacked, bullied, or "villified" when in reality he imitated attacks, bullying, and villification, minorities and allies are merely exercising their constitutional right to criticize the an executive who threatens groups of people by attacking their very identities. Self-defense is not an aggressive or offensive action, and your post demonstrates that you have been manipulated into believing the "bullied Trump" myth.
A side note, this election Trump and other GOP'ers claimed liberals were propagating identity politics. While in some cases true, we should also recognize identity politics is pervasive among right-wing politicians and supporters who propagate white identity, Christianity, masculinity, and heterosexuality as ideals by political candidates within a meritocracy. To criticize and combat institutions of privilege is not propagating identity politics, but rather in pursuit of dismantling the system of identity politics that HAS ALWAYS EXISTED in our socio-political system on the basis of minority identity (slavery, suffrage, wages, legal rights, voting rights, employment discrimination, etc.) A true meritocracy should not value identity, but currently (and in the past_ the meritocracy is entrenched with ideals directly tied to fixed identity in order to dis-empower groups of people permanently.
Essentially The rhetoric of resistance to Donald Trump is necessary, and it is important that resistance of people be organized in order to be more effective. Some individuals who become homicidal radicals, literally constitute less than .00001% of the population. Do not criticize anyone, may they be progressives, moderates, or conservatives for employing anti-discrimination rhetoric against Donald Trump, unless you want to admit that you are resisting resistance, and affirming discrimination and inequity.
As for the examples you cited, they are contained in the .00001% of the large group of people who are resisting trump. These people recognize the harms caused by Donald Trump, but fail to choose an action that is most effective (which happens to be non-violent). However, please do not give us this bit that these extreme examples represent the majority of millions of people who detest Trump's actions for what they are -- exceptionally heinous discrimination. And please do not pretend that Trump has not engage is said actions as it is f***ing ignorant and rude to the many people who are being targeted by the POTUS and alt-right. We should be alarmed and take action rather than be complicit because the POTUS is in fact dangerous and threatening to millions of Americans. However, violence is not only immoral, it is ineffective, not a matter of Trump not deserving such level of vilification as you inanely state.
Sword Master
You underestimate my power!
- 645
- Posts
- 9
- Years
- London
- Seen Mar 7, 2018
Wow the previous two comments show how divided America actually is.
You can see the two above blaming people on the other side rather than accepting people on their own side is bad. Get out of your echo chambers and maybe then you will understand that both sides have flaws, especially the far left and right.
You can see the two above blaming people on the other side rather than accepting people on their own side is bad. Get out of your echo chambers and maybe then you will understand that both sides have flaws, especially the far left and right.
Last edited:
- 26,065
- Posts
- 13
- Years
- Age 29
- Australia
- Seen yesterday
I don't think either of the two before you ever implied that their side of the political spectrum was without fault. In any sufficiently large enough group there are going to be extremists, that's a given. It's foolish though, to ignore the many faults of the right - especially the Trump administration - because "hey there's crazy people on the left too!"
The existence of extreme leftists doesn't justify the wrongs of the right.
Also, this is a friendly reminder that we should all be trying to keep things said in the context of the OP.
Sword Master
You underestimate my power!
- 645
- Posts
- 9
- Years
- London
- Seen Mar 7, 2018
I meant that that the those two where nailing in the fact that the other side has all these faults, while playing their sides fault. Although the right has many faults so does the left for example the bullying of people who supported Trump in the rustbelt, insults probably helped Trump win the Republican convention (who had many other candidates who were sensible). The right isn't just the Trump admin, many right-wingers aren't the biggest fans of Trump. Many right wing governments across the world have been successful just as left wing, and the fact that you seem keen to point out that the right has many faults but so does the far left (who preach reverse sexism amongst other despicable things) and they are growing more than the right which is very concerning as they can brainwash children easily.
You could say the same about extreme rightists as well and the left. The fact is that this incident could increase as both sides start to shut debate out, and the dehumanisation of many people.
I can tell here on this site there's a slight bias towards the left, and that creates a certain demonization of the right (and people who had differing opinions being called part of the alt-right by a certain person), and I know if there was a right wing bias here I would also defend the left as to not create an echo chamber.
- 26,065
- Posts
- 13
- Years
- Age 29
- Australia
- Seen yesterday
I should probably clarify that I think any extremism is bad.
Varius
Very Problematic Human
- 36
- Posts
- 8
- Years
- The outer rings of Hell
- Seen Jun 24, 2017
I mean, it's not like the Birther campaign wasn't in any form the kind of vilification you're describing. A bunch of people saying you weren't born here and thus not allowed to be president by the rules of the constitution is the exact opposite of LARPing as a revolutionary trying to take down a Fascist president when there is none to be told, nor did the campaign get the support of the entirety of the Right-wing. Meanwhile, the #Resist narrative is being co-opted by the mainstream Left and is bringing all the rhetoric I have mentioned to the Left. And of course, Obama would receive more death threats because he was in for longer, but no one has tried acting out on their aggression except two fence jumpers at the White House and the two shootings at Planned Parenthood and that Comet joint (I'm not sure if that was before or after Trump's election, my memory of that whole Pizzagate fiasco is pretty fuzzy). Trump had an assassination attempt during his campaign and there has been two people within 11 months that tried killing multiple republicans (the GOP shooter in this thread and whomever sent that white power to Handel and her neighbors).
The italicized line is taken out of context, it is talking about illegal immigrants from Mexico. Regarding the claims to racism, most of his rhetoric has been going into a nationality or a religion rather than a race. However, the rest can definitely be debated for due to his actions. Does any of this justify the calls for assassination and the frequent calls for political extremism that even moderate leftists will turn the other cheek to? Instead of blaming your own rhetoric, you blame other's rhetoric due to tribalism.
Because calling for the murder of Republicans, assassination of Trump, and the targeting of his family and Republican's by the extremists and the defending of such atrocious actions by the moderates is totally not from the constant vilification, right? /s
You see, there is a difference from vilification and people genuinely speaking out against Trump. Most moderates do peakk out against Trump, but they find any bastardized reasoning to defend his vilification and to defend some of these atrocities. When you cannot point and say that one part of your campaign is doing wrong, then your are indirectly supporting it.
Depends on which part of the Right-wing you're talking about. The libertarian half of the wing does not support this kind of identity politics from what I've seen and would generally support a true meritocracy as you're describing. The reason why the Right is calling out the Left on identity politics, however, is because a good bit of the left loves to put each identity into a collective and will treat each group in fundamentally different ways depending on how "oppressed" they are. Am I saying the entire left wing does this? No.
And literally 30-40% will defend the rhetoric that gives them the idea to go Republican hunting in the morning. I am not criticizing the anti-discrimination rhetoric, but the rhetoric that calls for direct action. If you don't know what direct action is, I should direct you to the Fascist doctrine where calls of violence are justified. The problem here is that you are assuming my political stance; I loathe the both political parties. Meanwhile, the constant violence I see from these free speech rallies are almost always started by some LARPing revolutionary in Antifa who'd love nothing more but to bash people with a bike lock. Just remember what these Marxists do not care for your side either and will only use you as useful idiots.
I don't know man (or woman), last time I checked, mainstream media sources go out to a lot of people, and when you have politicians telling their followers to "fight in the streets", it's definitely going to be much higher. Both Tim Kaine, Huffington Post and that Democratic strategist have rhetoric fueling domestic terrorism threatening the state and yet the Left seems unable to call it out and will even defend it. When you defend that rhetoric, then you are opening more doors to the growth of extremism. And I never pretended that he has not engaged in that rhetoric; I am merely pointing out the violent rhetoric fueling these terror attacks.
When we, as a society, are perfectly okay with having any form of media showing the president being assassinated and advocating for coup d'etats, we are but one step closer at dismantling democracy within our state. This goes for the 2013 Caesar play depicting Obama as Caesar as well. By the end of Trump's first term, I will not be surprised if the violence escalates to the levels comparable to right before the March on Rome.
I do not accept my "side" because I am not a part of the Republican party or the Democratic party. Most of it is neoconservative drivel. People who have seen my political view points in their entirety tend to call me centrist to center-right economically and libertarian socially. But I do agree; toxic rhetoric from both sides is definitely splitting the country apart. Just now, many people on Trump's side are trying to support attacking the Left due to these recent attacks. Political strife in this country will only get worse.
Last edited:
Sword Master
You underestimate my power!
- 645
- Posts
- 9
- Years
- London
- Seen Mar 7, 2018
I wouldn't be surprised either, it would have to escalate quickly but it is very possible now.
I
Yeah I'm basically a centrist as well. Sorry about that, try not to make assumptions next time. Agree 100% here.
- 78
- Posts
- 8
- Years
- Seen Apr 24, 2025
I am for a neutral state, in which the laws of the land apply equally to all citizens, and is not set on a foundation of inequity to rights based on identity. I fail to see how that is an extreme, maybe extremely neutral. I am against identity politics because to favor law, policy, and culture that values a particular set of attributes is radicalizing identitarian ideology.
Also, I do not assume your political stance. I assume you are critical of resistance to an equitable state, of which demands relentless political resistance. I never state that you are a Republican, rather I clearly state that you are anti-resistance by claiming Trump is being villified. Your assuming that I am assuming.
Then you continue to backtrack by stating you are not against anti-discrimination rhetoric and resistance; however, you claim Trump has been unfairly vilified as if to say the level of threat to equity posed is trivial. So which is it?
The birther movement was accompanied by villifying the president as a Muslim terrorist, without any support. To base dislike based on FALSEHOOD is not justified villification. Do you not understand the point. Whereas Trump's supposed "vilification" was of his own doing. I am stating that your claim that said vilification by the resistance is someone unjustified is representing complicity to an authoritarian advancing white christian nationalism and downplaying the unwarranted vilification of President Obama. I of course, like many have points of contention with President Obama, but certainly we can see that in many regards his vilification was based on myth, whereas Donald Trump's action are having a negative impact on large groups of people's lives.
I just can't with your comment on Mexican immigrants. The crime data demonstrates that illegal immigrants do not commit more violent crime, but much less in fact. https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/26/us/trump-illegal-immigrants-crime.html?_r=0
Moreover, the President is utilizing the racist foundation of American Politics when he makes claims that illegal immigrants are rapists since he is hopping onto the right-wing rhetoric that Hispanic men are part of a sexually violent culture. It is naive to say the least, and demonstrative of your complicity to racism when you defend the President's (then presidential candidate) words by stating that racism is not related to . Let's not also forget that during the first debate, Trump was asked to speak about race relations, and the very first words out of his mouth were "law and order". He is reducing people to the label of criminals as central to their identity. Let's not also forget Muslim=terrorist, which is again a primarily brown group. He is purposely targeting groups that are phenotypically non-Caucasian for the purpose of constructing a white Christian nationalist movement of which religion, race, and nationalism all play central roles. Your defense of the President speaks volumes to either your naivete that race has nothing to do with nationalism and religion, or you are a complicit racist-apologist. I fail to see how ignorance to inequity or conscious racism is at all compatible with actual libertarianism seeing as though inequity affords some negative liberties and some fewer negative liberty, and to defend the President is to be for that disparity of liberty. You can say you are not politically affiliated all you want, but to not be against the president's racism, or go as far as defending his racism, makes you culpable of discrimination and anti-liberty.
Bye.
To make my post relevant to topic..lol...The resistance is justified toward restoring equity, whereas the anti-resistance is not justified in defending or even moderating the degree of inequity. To be a centrist would mean what exactly in this sense??? To actually be far-left would require that minorities want to have more rights and power than non-minorities. To view our the resistance movement as radical to the left is only a relativistic perspective which creates a narrative that there are two groups of dueling ideologues. In actuality, to dismantle a state of inequity is merely to dismantle radical identarian ideology, and let pluralism (non-hegemony) be the reigning "anti-ideology". Neutrality is not an extreme in an absolute sense. The rhetoric needs to continue to be strong on the left and relentless. Some people, it seems like so far some white males on the left, feel like it is their right to take illegal and violent action. These individuals are unconsciously AGAINST the resistant and the goals of restoring equity in society.
Also, I do not assume your political stance. I assume you are critical of resistance to an equitable state, of which demands relentless political resistance. I never state that you are a Republican, rather I clearly state that you are anti-resistance by claiming Trump is being villified. Your assuming that I am assuming.
Then you continue to backtrack by stating you are not against anti-discrimination rhetoric and resistance; however, you claim Trump has been unfairly vilified as if to say the level of threat to equity posed is trivial. So which is it?
The birther movement was accompanied by villifying the president as a Muslim terrorist, without any support. To base dislike based on FALSEHOOD is not justified villification. Do you not understand the point. Whereas Trump's supposed "vilification" was of his own doing. I am stating that your claim that said vilification by the resistance is someone unjustified is representing complicity to an authoritarian advancing white christian nationalism and downplaying the unwarranted vilification of President Obama. I of course, like many have points of contention with President Obama, but certainly we can see that in many regards his vilification was based on myth, whereas Donald Trump's action are having a negative impact on large groups of people's lives.
I just can't with your comment on Mexican immigrants. The crime data demonstrates that illegal immigrants do not commit more violent crime, but much less in fact. https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/26/us/trump-illegal-immigrants-crime.html?_r=0
Moreover, the President is utilizing the racist foundation of American Politics when he makes claims that illegal immigrants are rapists since he is hopping onto the right-wing rhetoric that Hispanic men are part of a sexually violent culture. It is naive to say the least, and demonstrative of your complicity to racism when you defend the President's (then presidential candidate) words by stating that racism is not related to . Let's not also forget that during the first debate, Trump was asked to speak about race relations, and the very first words out of his mouth were "law and order". He is reducing people to the label of criminals as central to their identity. Let's not also forget Muslim=terrorist, which is again a primarily brown group. He is purposely targeting groups that are phenotypically non-Caucasian for the purpose of constructing a white Christian nationalist movement of which religion, race, and nationalism all play central roles. Your defense of the President speaks volumes to either your naivete that race has nothing to do with nationalism and religion, or you are a complicit racist-apologist. I fail to see how ignorance to inequity or conscious racism is at all compatible with actual libertarianism seeing as though inequity affords some negative liberties and some fewer negative liberty, and to defend the President is to be for that disparity of liberty. You can say you are not politically affiliated all you want, but to not be against the president's racism, or go as far as defending his racism, makes you culpable of discrimination and anti-liberty.
Bye.
To make my post relevant to topic..lol...The resistance is justified toward restoring equity, whereas the anti-resistance is not justified in defending or even moderating the degree of inequity. To be a centrist would mean what exactly in this sense??? To actually be far-left would require that minorities want to have more rights and power than non-minorities. To view our the resistance movement as radical to the left is only a relativistic perspective which creates a narrative that there are two groups of dueling ideologues. In actuality, to dismantle a state of inequity is merely to dismantle radical identarian ideology, and let pluralism (non-hegemony) be the reigning "anti-ideology". Neutrality is not an extreme in an absolute sense. The rhetoric needs to continue to be strong on the left and relentless. Some people, it seems like so far some white males on the left, feel like it is their right to take illegal and violent action. These individuals are unconsciously AGAINST the resistant and the goals of restoring equity in society.
Last edited: