After Charlie Kirk's Death, Voters Agree Something Is Wrong in US
By: Shawn Hubler, Edgar Sandoval, and Audra D. S. Burch (The New York Times)
Oh come on, folks. This is just another fucking day in America. What happened in Utah is no different than a career ending injury on the 40 yard line. Thoughts & prayers, play ball. Have you not been entertained?
Okay, someone died this time. Shed phony tears while trying end someone's marriage, take away their career, take their life and their future. But that's not violence. Oh no, that's just the consequences of being politically incorrect. We're all justified in causing as much harm as possible without physical violence. If we can make someone utterly miserable then we've won. Sweet victory!
Now that it has gone too far, everyone cries "somebody do something". Somebody who? We need leaders, yup that's it. Leaders who cry phony tears and offer thoughts & prayers every time it goes too far. Leaders who tell you who to hate.
Don't worry folks, you're all off the hook. It's 'those' people, over there, who are the problem. If we could just silence 'those' people then everything would be fine.
It's just another fucking day in America.
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
After Charlie Kirk, the right-wing activist, was fatally shot during a political appearance on Wednesday, two thoughts occurred to Edward Padron, a 67-year-old locksmith in Brownsville, Texas. One was immediate. One was slower to rise.
A longtime conservative, Mr. Padron said he first assumed "a hate crime against a Republican" had just happened. But then he thought of other recent acts of violence across the political spectrum, from the attempts last year on the president's life to the fatal shootings in June of a Democratic lawmaker in Minnesota and her husband. It seemed to him as if some terrible disease was gripping the nation, with no cure on the horizon.
"This could happen to anybody in this country," Mr. Padron said, speaking from his home near the Mexican border. "I think that people across the board are afraid."
That anxiety echoed this week in interviews with Americans, including a group of voters that The New York Times has been following throughout the Trump presidency. No matter their politics, people said they were deeply unsettled after the killing of Mr. Kirk, who had built a national movement promoting right-wing politics on campuses like the one in Utah where his life ended.
Some of those interviewed had not heard of Mr. Kirk. Others felt strongly about him and his politics, for and against. But virtually all agreed that Mr. Kirk's violent death seemed to confirm a deep fear that something is seriously wrong in this nation.
It was not just the gun violence. In some sense, that has become a daily tragedy, lamentable but unsurprising. As several people pointed out, there was also a school shooting in Colorado on Wednesday.
Instead, Mr. Kirk's death at 31 symbolized for many the collapse of what they thought was a basic, common-sense, need-not-be-debated American value: that people expressing a political opinion should not be shot for it.
"There was someone on TV, and he kept saying that this was not who we are — that we are not one of those countries that shoots people over politics," said Charles Phoenix, 62, a left-leaning artist based in the Los Angeles area.
"But it is who we are. We do shoot political leaders. We are that country."
In interviews, people whipped through their own experiences and fears, trying to put a finger on just how things had become this ugly. They talked about friendships that dissolved into arguments, the infinite stream of disinformation, the knee-jerk name-calling, the calls for violence, the inability to see past partisan manipulation and calmly debate.
"Unfortunately, we are broken," said Dave Abdallah, 60, a real estate agent in Dearborn, Mich.
Erwin McKone, 55, a salesman near Flint, Mich., who grudgingly voted for Donald Trump last November, was on the golf course when he received news alerts about the shooting. He did not know much about Mr. Kirk, but the news hit him like a gut punch. Fighting back tears, he said that the killing seemed to arise from an animus that was increasingly disconnected from facts, accountability and reason, to the point that he barely had the stomach to consume news these days.
"It seems like we're totally living in insanity," he said, "every moment of every day."
In Marietta, Ga., Taylor Busch, 44, said the rancor over the Kirk shooting spilled into a Discord channel where he and other aficionados of the video game Destiny 2 regularly talk. Some of the members, he said, have known each other for 10 years.
"We've always kept it very dry, stayed away from political events," said Mr. Busch, who voted for Kamala Harris last year. But after one of his friends posted a video of the killing, an argument erupted.
The gamers who supported Mr. Kirk bristled. They said, "'Well, I like the things that he liked. I believed in things he believed in. You think I should be murdered?'" Mr. Busch recalled. "I'm like, no one's saying that."
Mr. Busch said that he was trying to make the point that Mr. Kirk "said these horrible things, and at the same time, it's horrible that he died."
Two people left the group, deeply offended.
Several people on the right reported a similar rush of fear and vulnerability.
In Utah, Bryce Youngquist, 43, a software salesman in Salt Lake City, said he was at a luncheon at his alma mater, Brigham Young University, when a host stood up and announced the news of the shooting.
Amid the gasps and the prayers, he said, his sadness for Mr. Kirk's family was mixed with "kind of a terrifying feeling" that the shooting had, in some way, threatened him as a conservative.
"This feels like a turning point," he said. "How are we going to move forward now?"
Liberals felt the threat, too.
Thien Doan, 36, a software engineer in Orange, Calif., said he had watched unhappily as his college-age nephews attended campus events where Mr. Kirk would be speaking. Mr. Doan disagreed with Mr. Kirk on nearly every issue and felt that many of his political statements — on gender, race, immigration — amounted to hate speech. But he was alarmed that Mr. Kirk had been killed.
Now he fears right-wing backlash. "Everything is just kind of worrying right now," Mr. Doan said.
Some wondered whether Americans fully understood how rare it is to be able to peacefully exchange ideas — especially ones that provoke deep disagreement.
In Michigan, Mr. Abdallah, the real estate agent, worried that the shooting would chill free speech, worsen polarization and excite people with "the wrong mental direction" to violent action, as had happened so often in Lebanon, where he was born.
"I hope this type of thing does not discourage other people from going on campus and speaking," he said, but the response to Mr. Kirk's death made him fear for American discourse.
At the University of Wisconsin-River Falls, Emily Rose, a 19-year-old liberal, said that students on her politically mixed campus had already learned to hold back and largely discussed politics only with like-minded people.
"Sometimes when the conversation veers toward politics in a mixed space, things feel tense," she said.
At the University of Wyoming, Charles Vaughters, 25, who served in the Marines before enrolling in college, worried that things could get much worse.
Although he disagreed with Mr. Kirk on some issues, he said that he appreciated the discourse. But, he asked, when people on the left compare the Trump administration to fascists and Nazis, how could political violence be surprising?
At the same time, he warned that the killing had turned Mr. Kirk into a modern-day martyr for the far right, especially for many college-age men who idolized him. When Mr. Kirk's "American Comeback Tour" stopped at his red-state campus last spring, the auditorium overflowed with a sold-out audience of more than 1,800 people.
"A lot of young men are extremely angry about this," he said.
In Lacombe, La., Clifford Eugene, 74, also worried about political rhetoric.
"Since the election of President Barack Obama, I feel like the country has gotten more and more divisive," said Mr. Eugene, a retired bank examiner for the Treasury Department. "Now, you have leaders who demonize the other side and declare them enemies of the people."
But what could be done? Mr. Eugene, a Democrat, was at a loss to name a remedy for this angry and entrenched nation.
"Political violence, in my opinion, is like water in a reservoir: A dam keeps it in place," he said. "This moment feels like a dam buster. The gates are open and political violence is now part of our society."
Johnny Kauffman, Ernesto Londono, Juliet Macur, Laurel Rosenhall, Kurt Streeter and Sabrina Tavernise contributed reporting.
Shawn Hubler is The Times's Los Angeles bureau chief, reporting on the news, trends and personalities of Southern California.
Edgar Sandoval covers Texas for The Times, with a focus on the Latino community and the border with Mexico. He is based in San Antonio.
Audra D. S. Burch is a national reporter, based in South Florida and Atlanta, writing about race and identity around the country.
Be a good human. Grossly derogatory comments, blatantly inflammatory comments, excessive trolling, mean-spirited taunting and insults, scamming, spamming, and off topic comments may be removed in compliance with the site's Terms of Service and the Code of Conduct. The moderators have the final word.
Our hearts and prayers go out to whoever gets tagged the next time it goes too far. It's a shame. Somebody needs to do something.
Somebody who?
"After Charlie Kirk's Death, Voters Agree Something Is Wrong in US"
Maybe that "Something" that's wrong is the fact that the "US" is also "Us".
There won't be any backlash by the right wingers, that's not who we are. But the violent and angry progressives who applaud this senseless murder show us on a daily basis who they are. The pitiful attempts by the resident hate mongers and death wishers trying to absolve themselves of any blame for this killing and blame the victim, is a good example of this deranged and depraved thinking
Business owners knew they didn't have to board up their windows when Kirk was killed.
Yes it is. I’ve seen the clips from FoxNews. They’re all talking about being at war, and getting revenge against the unidentified “they” out to get them.
And you were gullible enough to believe them?
You must be talking about Senator Chris Murphy. He's a Democrat.
"We're in a war right now to save this country. And so you have to be willing to do whatever is necessary in order to save the country"
Oh, are you employing the now classic “just joking” excuse? Typical.
Another deflection fail. Party above all else, right? Defend to to the end!
You might want to look in the mirror.
Ahh….the “I’m rubber you’re glue” response.
I don’t belong to a party, but good try. Oh no wait, it was a lame try.
Lol. Sure. You are just faithfully parroting their talking points by coincidence.
I don’t belong to a party, but good try. Oh no wait, it was a lame try.
Nothing posted here today will be lamer than that. Third graders would find that cringy.
Tacos is probably the least partisan person on this forum. He has views I don't agree with but with him you can at least have a civil discussion. So stop with the trolling
Actually it's a question. Look at the punctuation. [✘]
More trolling.
The best way to honor Charlie Kirk is to get out and vote against the democrats who have legitimized violence in the midterm election.
The "right wing NAZI fascist racist haters" will obviously say something that will trigger the perpetual victims. And they won't apologize, for Pete's sake. It'll be a bloodbath!
Maybe not from you, but there is backlash
Oh, fuck right off. This? The death of Charlie Kirk makes you think something is wrong? Fuck Charlie Kirk and everybody who needed this event to find something wrong in the country. This is the moment that triggers you?
Not the hundreds of mass shootings - especially those targeting children. Not fucking that???
Not generations of gang violence?
And if we’re just confining it to political violence, thousands of maniacs swarming into the Capitol building and assaulting cops, while calling for the lynching of the Vice President - that wasn’t “something wrong?”
Not to mention it has pretty much been the primary function of both parties in Washington to not talk, not compromise, but simply block whatever it is the other side wants to do, while ceding limitless power to the president.
I know right?
Just where is the outrage when little kids are killed at school?
Here:
Gee...I wonder what he thinks about that statement now?/s
This is why no one should feel bad about this. Charlie Kirk supported what happened to Charlie Kirk.
/s sorta
Do you feel people driving cars, swimming in pools, flying in planes etc.. are worth the cost of deaths that inevitably result from those things?
And now class, for today’s desperate deflection, we’ll get a lecture on false equivalency…
[✘]
And he has a lot of followers who enthusiasticslly agree with that . . .
First of all that’s bullshit. But second of all, who cares? It doesn’t matter if they were all committed by leprechauns. The Charlie Kirks of the world still think it’s all necessary and don’t want to do anything to stop it.
“Bla bla bla it’s the liberals.” That’s all you offer. That’s the Right’s stock in trade: blame a group. Scapegoat. No solutions, just blame followed by victimhood - “the liberals are destroying our precious traditions and culture.”
Demonizing a group is what keeps the faithful in line and supporting the party. Party party party uber alles. No responsibility. No reflection.
But the "right wing NAZI fascist racist haters" are lying about crime as an excuse to deploy the National Guard. OMG, we're all going to be so triggered!!!
They are, so you can add that to the list too
How many children have the National Guard saved?
What is the acceptable level of crime? At what point do we just accept a 'normal' level of crime as just another fucking day in America?
Apparently Gov. Pritzker is happy with the level of crime in Chicago. Great job, JB! Give that governor a medal and erect a statue. And it doesn't matter what the people living in Chicago think.
Dunno. How can we count the number of crimes there were prevented? Guess all the "right wing NAZI fascist racist haters" are lying because, well, that's what they do. You know how 'they' are.
We certainly don't want anyone enforcing any laws. That would be illiberal. It's nonsense believing a law enforcement presence could possibly lower crime. That's just stupid talk.
The president seems to know. And his cult all believe him.
Aaaanndd there we are! If I don’t want military troops in our cities, it MUST mean I don’t want anyone enforcing any laws. You don’t get much more strawman bullshititude than that.
Okay, what IS the reasoning behind it..........other than, once again, Trump is right and the crime goes down?
Aaaanndd there we are! "Right wing NAZI fascist racist hater" Trump is lying. And Trump's "right wing NAZI fascist racist haters" supporters are so stupid they believe him.
Fair enough. Who should be enforcing laws if not the government?
First of all, the Guard has not been deployed to protect children or stop mass shooters, in general. That was the genesis of this thread. They’re also not focused on chasing down gangs, which is another thing I mentioned.
Second, I would agree that some crime is going to be diminished if you deploy the Guard. It would have to be. If we doubled the number of cops on the streets (or even working in offices) in our cities, crime would go down.
But the real issue is, do we want troops - military, with weapons of war and armored vehicles - patrolling the streets? I don’t. I don’t want us to look and function like a military dictatorship. If crime is the concern, I’d rather have actual cops.
But crime isn’t the concern of the guy deploying those troops. I believe the concern is how much power and authority Trump can wield domestically. I don’t believe Trump gives a shit about crime in Chicago or LA or Memphis, or anywhere else. He only cares about Trump.
You didn't address my comment. The President and his administration are lying about crime in order to send the National Guard into Chicago. This is fact.
You came back with a non-sequitur:
I am sure that everyone would love no crime. I know that I would love to live in a world without crime. Unfortunately, there are people who do not get along for a multitude of reasons. People have different ways of addressing the problem of crime. Some are proactive and attempt to alleviate the causes of crime, others involve more police and more effective ways of policing. So I am going to turn the question around and ask you what level of crime necessitates federal troops patrolling the streets?
The first sentence is just untrue on its face. Nobody wants crime nor are they happy when it occurs. And as far as the people of Chicago are concerned, have you asked them?
That's true. The National Guard has been deployed to perform the mundane task of patrolling public areas. That frees the local police to monitor for and prevent more violent crimes. The expectation is that local police chase down gangs, root out potential threats to schools, and defend against mass shooters. The local cops can't do that if their time is spent doing mundane tasks like patrolling areas.
The National Guard patrols should reduce the amount of petty crime and crimes of opportunity. But the presence of the National Guard patrolling the streets allows the local police to focus attention on reducing more serious crime.
Today's police are patrolling streets carrying the same weapons. Today's police utilize the same armored vehicles. How would cops patrolling public areas be any different that Guardsmen patrolling those areas? Guardsmen taking over the task of patrolling areas free the real cops to do real policing. The National Guard aren't there to replace the real cops.
Maybe. But it's also possible this is a political effort to demonstrate that the problem of crime can be tackled with policing. Deploying the National Guard is not 'broken windows' policing. It's an alternative to defunding the police. I'm surprised that Big Government Democrats aren't seizing on this as a viable approach to expand the government workforce and provide assistance to cities. It seems that Democrats should be arguing to replace the National Guard with civilian police.
Trump has deployed the National Guard to Los Angeles and to Washington D.C. And Trump has said he will be sending the National Guard to Memphis instead of Chicago. Apparently crime is at an acceptable level in Chicago and the police don't need any assistance.
When a local police force is overwhelmed then deploying National Guard to perform mundane tasks of patrolling public areas would be warranted. For one thing, National Guardsman are pretty good at patrolling areas and providing that sort of security. The National Guard taking over those mundane security duties frees the local police to fight more serious crime.
More actual cops would accomplish that for less money and with greater efficiency. Employing two different organizations to police a city is inherently inefficient. Any attempt at coordination between these organizations inherently increases costs and slows the process of policing. And coordination is necessary if you want it done right.
Furthermore, police are actually trained in police work. The Guard does not have the same training. That training matters, even for whatever allegedly low level policing the Guard might try to do.
Not true. In special circumstances, yes, police have some military-style tools, but they are the exception, not the rule.
No way. When the president inflicts the Guard on cities against the will of the state government, local government, and the general population of a place, that is not policing to tackle crime. It’s a military occupation.
They why hasn't it been done? Why haven't Democrats at the national level been arguing for more of this type of policing? The National Guard are performing duties consistent with security guards. Seems like that would be a good jobs program for Democrats to advocate and pursue.
Some Guard units are trained military police so that generalization won't apply in all cases. But, agreed, the Guard units being deployed don't have the specialized training to perform law enforcement duties. But that's not how the deployed Guard is being utilized. The Guard is not replacing the local police. The Guard is performing the types of security duties that they have been trained to perform.
The Guard taking over those low level duties allows the trained police to focus attention on duties for which they are trained. That allows for a better utilization of trained law enforcement in fighting crime.
Police officers providing security for a public event will typically patrol with military style protective gear and weapons to be ready to respond to potential terrorist attacks or a mass shooting situation. Police are often better protected and armed on security patrol than are the deployed Guardsmen.
Los Angeles and Washington D.C. are the only deployments to date.
Why hasn’t what been done? Increase police? It has been done. Many times. It can also be done again, but resources and priorities are relevant considerations. Statistically, crime has been declining across the country for decades.
The needs of a city are individual and beyond our ability to analyze them all here. Constitutionally, local jurisdictions have the authority to make decisions on this point.
Define "overwhelmed ".
More police and other interdiction methods along with programs designed to make young people see that there is a different way to achieve could accomplish the same goals without having soldiers marching in our streets. But that takes time to do, money to be invested wisely, and patience to monitor and adapt programs to meet the needs of the people being served.
Not explicit enough, my fault.
Why haven't cities increased the number of security guards patrolling public spaces to free highly trained law enforcement officers from these mundane tasks and allow highly trained law enforcement officers to focus attention on performing duties commensurate with their training and skills?
Yet we can make a rational, generalized observation that cities need law enforcement. The recent activist demands for defunding law enforcement would seem contrary to the rational generalization the cities need law enforcement. The recent activist demand that specialists in de-escalation techniques be added to police forces is not conducing to preventing and reducing crime. De-escalation is intended to provide a better outcome for suspected criminals by lowering the risk of injury to those suspected criminals.
We can also make a rational, generalized observation that preventing crime will naturally reduce the number of suspects and lessen the need to de-escalate interactions between law enforcement and suspects.
Security guards have been a cost effective means for private businesses to secure their property and prevent crimes against their property. Why can't cities follow that same proven model?
"his teams overwhelmed their opponents"
"they were overwhelmed by farewell messages"
"I was overwhelmed with guilt"
"the wine doesn't overwhelm the flavor of the trout"
Every city is different, but the most common answer is probably money. A city could spend all its money on cops, but that still wouldn’t get rid of all crime, and you wouldn’t be able to pay for all the other stuff cities need to pay for.
So you have to strike a balance between how much crime you think you can stomach and all the other things you care about.
That poorly named campaign is years old at this point, was rarely ever even considered seriously, and almost no one is saying that these days. What is really needed, and desired by most people, is police reform.
In any event, defunding per se, didn’t actually happen much. Did police funding decrease in individual places? Sure, that will always happen now and then. But cities still have police departments. And again, the reasons that police funding increases or decreases in a given place is very individualized. Furthermore, I would submit that nowhere is there a city where the government doesn’t care about crime.
But every day in any city becomes a trend. And those trends speak to the city's priorities. A city could spend more money on cops. A city could spend more money on housing noncitizens who entered the country illegally. Which priority has more merit?
That means questioning what constitutes an acceptable level of crime is neither facetious or irrelevant. Not quite the non-sequitur that was claimed by others. An acceptable level of crime is actually an important consideration when prioritizing public expenditures. But wouldn't it be reasonable to explore ways to maximize crime prevention with the most budget conscious means?
Police reform was the justification for demands to defund the police. Police reform is a fuzzy, generalized, political feel-good talking point. Police reform is supposed to imply everything without saying anything. What specific police reforms are needed to improve crime prevention?
It happened where the George Floyd murder occurred and the nationwide protests began. Defunding the police in Minneapolis wasn't about crime prevention. Defunding the police in Minneapolis was a coerced response to political violence.
Ok, well the general trend over the years has been decreasing crime. So, that would tend to show that the cities prioritize fighting crime.
Do you imagine cities don’t do that?
No it’s not. You’re dismissing it out of hand. Your comment is like saying Democracy or Liberty are feel-good talking points. They’re not. They are real words with vast meanings. We could spend years digging into the details. You calling police reform a feel-good talking point sadly shows that you are not interested in even considering the idea that police could improve their public service.
No, it really didn’t. Like I said, there was a lot of talk like that, but it didn’t actually happen. Follow this link to see that not only does Minneapolis have a functioning police department, but spending on that department increases almost every year.
Link?
Link for what? A recipe for opossum chili?
Pritzker has publicly stated that crime rates have fallen, crime is not a major issue in Illinois, and the National Guard are not needed. Does that sound like Pritzker is concerned about the level of crime?
Did you miss the 'apparently' context of the comment? It's a rational conclusion derived from what Pritzker has said publicly. Do you have a link that suggests Pritzker is apparently concerned about the level of crime in Chicago and Illinois? And if Pritzker is concerned about the level of crime, can you explain why Pritzker would reject Federal assistance for addressing crime?
The largest act of political violence in decades was the J6 attack on the United States Capitol.
If people from every political party cannot agree on that when we saw it televised then I don't know what can be done.
The J6 rioters attacked the United States Capitol resulting in millions of dollars in damages, killed police officers, caused police officers who were so mentally scared afterward they committed suicide, wounded police officers, paraded around with stolen property from many duly elected representatives and from Capitol offices, smeared feces on the walls, erected a gallows chanting hang Mike Pence, and unapologetically BRAG about it!!!!
They did this carrying Trump flags, MAGA hats, tear gas everywhere, causing fear, chaos and destruction. All because of lies spread again and again by pundits and podcasters inflaming the right wing furor to a boiling point of no return based on the lie Trump wanted spread.
Afterward the blame fell on the non existing "antifa" but these individuals were caught and only about 1500 or 1600 hundred of them were prosecuted for their crimes.
Trump pardoned all of them. They are free to continue their path of violence.
Trump approved paying these destructive criminals back the restitution damages many were forced to pay.
Guess what? All of the damages now on the American taxpayer rather than on the attackers.
So after blaming the "left" or "antifa" many of these violent right-wing extremists brag about it, Stewart Rhodes one of the ringleaders is planning to get the band back together and openly threaten a "war".
The Womens March on Washington after Trump was elected the first time was one of the largest protest marches in our history. They wore knitted pink pussycat hats, marched in the freezing cold some with bundled up strollers, women in wheelchairs, women of all colors and backgrounds marched.Mostly Democrats but there were Republican women who marched too because they didn't want to see their rights rolled back.
Compare these two reactions.
These women did not attack the Capitol, they did not erect a gallows, they made a non-violent political statement at their own expense even if it fell on deaf ears and did not spread lies about the election, they accepted it and spoke out.
Democrats want to reduce guns and gun violence, they want more funding for mental health and healthcare in general.
So no one on the right should EVER feel that there is a "war" to be had when the party currently being demonized wants to help end gun violence and give Americans healthcare.
Obama didn't take their guns, he didn't put right wingers in forced FEMA camps, he got ACA passed that has become one of the most popular programs that cover many families regardless of politics.
Until reality of real policies take precedent over talking heads, foreign manipulation, podcasters making a buck on gullible people, and "influencers" pushing a private agenda, then there cannot be any change until someone forgets politics and begins picking up the truth based on reality rather than vibes and manipulation.
I thought of Jan 6 when I read the phrase "this is what triggers you?"
A huge number of Americans see the hundreds of riots, cities on fire, billions in damage, homes and businesses looted and destroyed and think "a redneck with his feet on Nancy Pelosi's desk... This is what triggers you?.... NOW you think riots are a problem??"
I think a huge part of the problem is a cultural unwillingness to acknowledge the misdeeds of people who are members of the tribe.
Are you really going to be this dishonest in your description of Jan 6? Tell me this is a joke.
Ask him if he thinks Ashley Babbitt was murdered.
Do you mean am I going to disagree with your predictable liberal overreaction... absolutely.
No, I mean are you just going to straight up lie about that day. It seems the answer is yes.
Speaking of bullshit…
You're proving my point.
Left wing lunatics in Seattle literally declared independence from the United States. Full on secession. But we just sat there and stared at their stupid asses for over a month. We held back law enforcement, allowing people to be raped and murdered.
Never mind that. We're not supposed to pay any attention to the rioters from Team Blue State. We're only supposed to notice the ones who don't follow the doctrines of The Holy Church of Liberal Politics.
Which means we're all supposed to believe that on Jan 6 this group of people... almost all of whom own AR-15s... attempted an "insurrection" and somehow forgot to bring all the guns. Riiiiight.
Just because left wingers have been repeating that bullshit for 5 years now doesn't make it any more true than it's ever been.
It was a riot. Just like Portland, Dallas, Atlanta, Chicago, Kenosha, and everywhere else.
False. No one said not to pay attention to any other event. I sure as hell didn’t. January 6 was the topic, but you want to diminish it by framing it as “a redneck with his feet on Nancy Pelosi's desk,” and then deflect our attention from that to other events.
January 6 is unique. It wasn’t simply a demonstration turned violent. It was a deliberate attack on our nations capital (literally the building and the institution), the people within (Congress and the VP, not to mention the police trying to protect them), and what they were doing (certifying the presidential election). Nothing quite like that has ever happened in the history of this country.
Dismissing all of that as a guy with his feet on a desk is disgraceful.
The comment in question was "The largest act of political violence in decades was the J6 attack on the United States Capitol." Which is idiotic. The comment then goes on to say those rioters "killed police officers", which is also idiotic.
The idea it was an "insurrection" is idiotic, for many obvious reasons.
The rest of that post is simply yet another ridiculous attempt at pretending the left wing is somehow morally superior to the rest of us.
You don't think the 1954 shooting was an attack on the institution and what it was doing?
1971 bombing? 1983 bombing?
Really? And we still think a riot where they all fucked off on their own after a few hours is the biggest act of political violence??
Stop it.
No. Not really. I didn’t mention any of those things, neither did you, and I have been clear that I am focused on January 6. Your dishonest comment is both a straw man and a deflection.
Since I haven’t taken the position you claim, I think you should stop it.
That is the point. That has been the point from the first comment.
Let me refresh your memory...
It's far easier to focus exclusively on the people we oppose than to look inside and see the problems in our own camp.
You talk about Charlie Kirk's murder with the response "this is what triggers you?" I say the same thing about Jan 6.
Yeah, you have the same problem. The assault I described is no biggie for you. That’s a problem.
I already problems with all that other shit, no matter who did them. Riots, school shootings, whatever. I want action on all of it. But Charlie Kirk’s attitude was yeah, we have to put up with stuff because…Second Amendment. And his idiot followers went along with that. But then someone shot him. And even though it might have been someone even further to the Right than Charlie, we urgently have to do something about the Left.
Nice try. Do cite me saying so.
I think all riots are wrong. My ideal outcome is to take all of the Jan 6 assholes and make each them share a cell with a Seattle CHAZ asshole.
Explain why my not thinking the way you want me to is a "problem". Problem for whom? Have I committed thoughtcrime?
OK... how is that wrong? The 2nd Amendment exists. You're not going to be able to change it. It wouldn't solve the problem if you did change it.
So now people who don't think the way you want them to are "idiots". Do you see how you're proving my point?
Evidence?
We’ve been over this. You described January 6 as a guy putting his feet on a desk. That says “no biggie.”
If you say so, but that would be inconsistent with what you have said here today.
Because casual dismissal of something like January 6 says you are unconcerned about abiding by our Constitution, and protecting our system of governance. A violent coup to stop the peaceful transfer of power is nothing to be triggered about, according to your comment. It was just some guy putting his feet up on someone else’s desk.
It’s a pathetic trend these days that people - especially on the Right - play this game where they are victimized for their speech. No one is out to get you here. You’re just wrong, in my opinion. That’s a shame, but it’s not a crime.
So, why try, right? I’ve been hearing it for years. Madness is defended on the grounds of “blah blah blah Second Amendment.” Did you ever think that maybe as a people, we aren’t worthy of a right to firearms with no conditions?
An exaggeration and a straw man. No, people aren’t idiots because I disagree with them. They’re idiots because they do or say something idiotic.
I’m not here to win or keep score. Apparently, you are. I care about the country.
We are starting to see reports of that possibility. I have no opinion. I will wait for more information, unlike so many who were declaring war on the Left before Kirk’s body was cold.
That says "not the largest act of political violence".
It's inconsistent with a view you assumed incorrectly.
There was never a threat to our system of governance. That's the point.
You said "problem". That's not exactly specific. And BTW, I don't translate words to "victimized". Word are not violence, regardless of what you may have been told.
Are you trying? To repeal the 2nd Amendment? Have you started a petition or something? Are you trying to get your senator to sponsor something? No? Why not, if you feel this strongly about it?
Or are you willing to admit the obvious, even if it means Charlie Kirk was probably right.
Is it? You just called them "idiots" because they don't think like you.
You are arguing with a libertarian nihilist. You will never make headway. Nothing about government is important to him.
OMG-- I hope they didn't suceed!
For a little over a month, they did.
They were massively more successful at "insurrection" than the Jan 6 morons.
But they were liberal, so it's OK......
The Jan 6th rioters were not there to have a kumbaya protest on the Capitol grounds. They were there to break in and attempt to do whatever they could to "stop the steal". That is what Trump wanted and they wanted to please him. Their "failure" to do so is immaterial.
Hence the term "riot".
Do you recognize that what the "Jan 6 morons" did meets the definition of 'insurrection' and thus there is nothing wrong with using that word to describe what took place?
And for legal context:
The Jan 6th insurrection/assault/breach/riot/... was substantially more than "a redneck with his feet on Nancy Pelosi's desk" . That trivializes what actually happened as not being a big deal. Trivialization is the same basic tactic, albeit in reverse, as exaggeration, where one exaggerates an act to make it seem worse than it actually is. Both are intellectual dishonesty.
I dont know whats worse, those who advocated for Jan 6th or those who try and minimize it.
Both are demonstrably wrong and indicate the underlying reason why we have Trump as the sitting PotUS.
The BLM protests in numerous cities marching into residential areas to threaten families of political figures and vandalize residential property doesn't count? The growing 'cancel culture' and 'digital vigilantism' on social media doesn't count? Doxxing and swatting people don't count? Bomb threats targeting schools and institutions don't count?
Of course it doesn't count. They were liberals, which means they're better people than the rest of us.
What are you referring to?
The people doing that on the political Left?
Or the people doing it on the political Right?
Or both?
'Cancel culture' and 'digital vigilantism' tend to be associated with younger people in their teens and twenties. The conventional wisdom has been that younger people are more liberal and become more conservative as they age. The assassination of Charlie Kirk may suggest conventional wisdom is no longer conventional.
The answer today would appear to be both left and right. Some elderly liberals are apparently suffering angst over that shift. Conservative young people? Who'd a thunk it?
Not clear on the pin protocol. Kirk was killed in a school but he was not a student. So congressional Republicans, Ak 47 pin. Yes or no?
Voters thought there was something wrong in the US before Charlie Kirk was murdered although this act highlighted it. Unfortunately with each side blaming what is wrong is because of the other side I see little hope for things getting better in the near future.
Agreed. With the political divide this country has and the sheep from both sides which blindly follow "their" party, I don't expect things to get better either. IMO this is what will cause the end of this country. Watching our politicians play their games reminds me of a little something seen on Facebook. It's been around for a long time however and I expect the recent Facebook rendition was copied from something else.
A lesson form everyone that will most likely be ignored.
Of course, because the sheep would rather debate on who's worse.
Or why it is the other guys fault.
Unfortunately there are politicians that kept accusing people of "Being on a 'Witch Hunt'" (When ever someone does something they don't like, they "play the 'Witch Hunt' card").
And many of their followers believe them.
I don't know what it's going to take for people to finally understand that politicians just don't care about 'We the People'. A politicians first duty is to get re-elected and to do that they must have the support of their party as the party has the most money and can primary anybody else against the person they don't want to keep. So of course, the politician is going to follow the dictates of the party.
Way too many sheep in the world who blindly follow the bleating of their party. Hell, we see it here daily.
I think you're right about that.