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.
- 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.
- 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
pissed? sure. 'murder someone about it'? unlikely. the things we get THAT upset about are entirely different.
okay but we do have information. I addressed that in points one and two. we do have information. I told you what information we have. so I return to point five, and wonder if you need a hug.
he searched for both biden and trump (and I think some others?) events because he didn't care WHO he shot, just that it was important. the kid was a right winger, in specifically the way that children can be, and that motivated that he did a shooting, but not who he shot. correct. this is what I said originally.
that is what I meant by 'in the way that kids are'
You keep implying I'm being emotional because you're arguing with me and have no grounding, so it makes you feel like your argument is stronger. Please, go away if that's all you're going to keep doing. I have not been emotional. Your insults seem to imply you potentially are though, so reconsider why you're doing this.
It seems pretty clear to me it was suicide. That was the goal, and leaving a mark was a bonus. He searched for both Biden and Trump events. It seems he would have taken either opportunity to go out while killing a (former) president and presidential candidate. It was not politically motivated and I don't know how you can assume he's right wing?
Yet you still say he's right wing. Based on what evidence? His parent's Trump signs, or the fact he said some "conservative" things to classmates at some point in time (and assume they can correctly identify conservative from anarchist or anything else being dumb teenagers)?
Look. I don't really care. I just don't appreciate dishonesty. Saying we have more information than we do is dishonest. I'm not replying to this anymore unless you actually add information. All you added this time is that "I'm being emotional" and even that wasn't the first time you did so. If you have more information, go ahead and include it. If not, you don't actually know his political ideology and you don't care about honesty.
i keep imply an existential crisis about the limits of knowledge, because we pretty-much know, and that's the only good-faith assumption I can think of that explains the uncertainty here.
How do we pretty much know? What more information do you have? You hope, and that's it. You have faith, which isn't useful.
Also, this isn't existential. It happened for sure, and the reasons exist. We may never know them though, but that isn't an existential crisis. If you're going to use terms like that, at least learn what they mean.
I said all this.
and I ask again: are you currently having an existential crisis about the limits of knowledge and the fundamental contradictions of knowledge? are you courting chapel perilous? are you balancing on the knifes edge of zen and madness? because that's the only way I can explain this level of skepticism.