False Media Narrative

[Unregistered]

Dayton shooter reportedly supported gun control, Elizabeth Warren, and socialism
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/n...-and-socialism

Was the Dayton shooter 'radicalized' by Elizabeth Warren?
https://www.americanthinker.com/blog...th_warren.html

Networks, liberal media make no mention of the Dayton shooter’s e-manifesto (social media footprint) whatsoever, stating only that “authorities are still searching for a motive”. There is your honest media for you – every bit as honest as Soviet era Pravda.

Did Bernie inspire the Scalise/Congressional shooter at the baseball field? Why didnt the liberal media talk about that? Is not class-warfare rhetoric of the type Bernie and Warren spew just as inflammatory as Trump’s statements that illegal immigrants are invaders (and that we should be taking educated professionals rather than indigent refugees from third world countries)? Class-warfare rhetoric is ultimately steeped in and based on race, since race underlies socioeconomic and class differences. Class warfare rhetoric is therefore ultimately racist.

The fact is that Trump has a right to say what he said (which was correct, and common sense) same as Bernie/Warren. Its called a free society with a first amendment. There will always be shooters. Just like we dont let a kid acting up in a classroom cause the entire class to be punished, or kept back a grade, we dont let a crazy and evil minority suppress our free flow of ideas – this is America after all.

If you want to know what is really driving the media hyperventilation blaming Trump over the El Paso shooting, as disgusting as it was, its really all about political payback.
During the Obama/Fvck the Police era Republicans blamed Obama for the uptick in murdered cops – for example, 2016 year to date officer fatalities via shooting were up 44% over the prior year. Though the stats were not much different over multiple years, there was a notable increase in ambush murders after Obama sided with black criminals and Kaepernick. Close to 50 officers lost their lives this way including the 5 in Dallas. Of course liberal media didn’t blame Obama for these murders, secretly seething. Now they blame Trump as payback.

Just political payback ladies and gentlemen. Especially since the fake Russia narrative blew up in their faces, now they have pivoted to Racist, Racist, Racist (when they are the ones that have created a permanently entrenched, big-government dependent, monolithically voting, ethnic/racial underclass)

[Unregistered]

Just political payback ladies and gentlemen. Especially since the fake Russia narrative blew up in their faces, now they have pivoted to Racist, Racist, Racist (when they are the ones that have created a permanently entrenched, big-government dependent, monolithically voting, ethnic/racial underclass)

Mass murderers with guns are not "just political payback." There isn't a Democrat on here who will applaud the Dayton shooter's actions because he supported Elizabeth Warren or accept it as just another day in America because he preferred "our side."

We want our politicians on both sides of the aisle to do something about our gun problem. And yes, it is a gun problem. The rest of the world has mental illness and access to the same movies and games we do and yet they don't have mass shootings at nearly the scale we do. What's the difference? Gun culture...fetish really.

Can you not grasp the difference in motive? The El Paso shooter left a far right manifesto and spelled out the name Trump in guns for a social media photo. The Dayton shooter, so far as we know yet, was not motivated by his support for Warren and has a history of violent ideation unrelated to politics. If it turns out he was motivated by his political beliefs, I can guarantee Democrats will be appalled, not sanguine, about it. In the meantime, we'll keep working to try to make all of our society safer.

Stop excusing right wing terrorism with whataboutism. We're all still waiting for you to agree that ALL f***ing violence is wrong no matter who the perpetrator is or why.

El Paso shooter - evil f**k
Dayton shooter - evil f**k

Can you get on board with that at least????

[Unregistered]

Mass murderers with guns are not "just political payback." There isn't a Democrat on here who will applaud the Dayton shooter's actions because he supported Elizabeth Warren or accept it as just another day in America because he preferred "our side."

We want our politicians on both sides of the aisle to do something about our gun problem. And yes, it is a gun problem. The rest of the world has mental illness and access to the same movies and games we do and yet they don't have mass shootings at nearly the scale we do. What's the difference? Gun culture...fetish really.

Can you not grasp the difference in motive? The El Paso shooter left a far right manifesto and spelled out the name Trump in guns for a social media photo. The Dayton shooter, so far as we know yet, was not motivated by his support for Warren and has a history of violent ideation unrelated to politics. If it turns out he was motivated by his political beliefs, I can guarantee Democrats will be appalled, not sanguine, about it. In the meantime, we'll keep working to try to make all of our society safer.

Stop excusing right wing terrorism with whataboutism. We're all still waiting for you to agree that ALL f***ing violence is wrong no matter who the perpetrator is or why.

El Paso shooter - evil f**k
Dayton shooter - evil f**k

Can you get on board with that at least????

I read Hilary's comments too. The largest mass killings ever committed used fertilizer, cyanide gas, box cutters, trucks, and airplanes. It's not a gun problem, it's just evil. If you take every single gun off the street, evil still exists. I'll concede it would cut down on the number of attacks but to think this is just a "gun problem" is short-sided. Tell that to the families of the 86 people (10 children) killed in France when a madman drove a truck through a crowd of pedestrians. The Oklahoma bombing killed 168 men, women, and children in a matter of seconds. What about the Boston Marathon bombing or the Atlanta bombing during the Olympics. How bout Charlottesville when James Fields drove his cars into a crowd of protesters. There's always the Belarus subway bombing that killed 15 and injured over 200. 2,977 people were killed in NYC on 9/11. How many guns were used to take these lives? Over 3200 lives taken from crazed madmen from just a few examples mentioned above. Most of these killers had access to the same movies and video games. What's the common denominator here? Doesn't seem to be guns. Evil is evil. It will always exist. You can't stop it. I 100% agree that the "assault-style" guns should be taken off the streets. I personally don't see the need but then again, I'm not a gun guy.

[Unregistered]

I read Hilary's comments too. The largest mass killings ever committed used fertilizer, cyanide gas, box cutters, trucks, and airplanes. It's not a gun problem, it's just evil. If you take every single gun off the street, evil still exists. I'll concede it would cut down on the number of attacks but to think this is just a "gun problem" is short-sided. Tell that to the families of the 86 people (10 children) killed in France when a madman drove a truck through a crowd of pedestrians. The Oklahoma bombing killed 168 men, women, and children in a matter of seconds. What about the Boston Marathon bombing or the Atlanta bombing during the Olympics. How bout Charlottesville when James Fields drove his cars into a crowd of protesters. There's always the Belarus subway bombing that killed 15 and injured over 200. 2,977 people were killed in NYC on 9/11. How many guns were used to take these lives? Over 3200 lives taken from crazed madmen from just a few examples mentioned above. Most of these killers had access to the same movies and video games. What's the common denominator here? Doesn't seem to be guns. Evil is evil. It will always exist. You can't stop it. I 100% agree that the "assault-style" guns should be taken off the streets. I personally don't see the need but then again, I'm not a gun guy.

no one is suggesting that we eliminate "evil," nor that any politician is responsible for evil. that's ridiculous. all that i think most fair minded people are calling for is tougher gun control laws (i.e., background checks and wait periods) and bans on the sale of weapons that serve no purpose unless you are planning on forming a hit squad.

[Unregistered]

no one is suggesting that we eliminate "evil," nor that any politician is responsible for evil. that's ridiculous. all that i think most fair minded people are calling for is tougher gun control laws (i.e., background checks and wait periods) and bans on the sale of weapons that serve no purpose unless you are planning on forming a hit squad.

I agree. Since we can agree on vigorous background checks and screenings for firearms, can we agree on vigorous immigration and voter ID verification? If the purpose of background checks are to ensure the safety and security of the America people, why are Democrats fighting against voter ID and immigration verification? Seems to me a common sense measure to help make us all safer. Begs the question is Washington really concerned with our safety or political advancement on either side.

[Unregistered]

I agree. Since we can agree on vigorous background checks and screenings for firearms, can we agree on vigorous immigration and voter ID verification? If the purpose of background checks are to ensure the safety and security of the America people, why are Democrats fighting against voter ID and immigration verification? Seems to me a common sense measure to help make us all safer. Begs the question is Washington really concerned with our safety or political advancement on either side.

Well, while we are agreeing, the proposal was for an assault weapons ban and vigorous background checks. You just took the part of the proposal you could live with, and ignored the other one.

We have fairly vigorous rules in place to ensure companies do not hire illegal job applicants. We have fairly vigorous voter ID laws already in place. I guess if you think there is something lacking in our existing voter ID/ E-verify laws, let me know. I can tell you from my business, ensuring E-verify compliance is important. While I am not taking away from the importance of these issues, I do not consider them to be major safety concerns. You must be watching different news sources than I am.

I agree with and respect the right to bear arms, just not assault weapons. There are many reasonable restrictions on constitutional rights (like yelling fire in a crowded theatre) and i think it is entirely legal (and consistent with the constitution) to ban weapons that fire more than X number of rounds per second, as having no real relationship to the public's right to defend themselves, as contemplated in the second amendment. If you believe there are no restrictions, at all, on the second amendment, then I suppose i should be able to purchase an RPG for my garage, and why not? maybe some silicon valley billionaires can acquire their own nuclear weapons to defend themselves.

[Unregistered]

... voter ID verification? If the purpose of background checks are to ensure the safety and security of the America people, why are Democrats fighting against voter ID and immigration verification? .....

If you don't mind, I'll address one aspect of your post.

The problem with voter ID laws is that for one thing, they attempt to solve a problem that does not exist. Election fraud is an issue that deserves serious attention. Voter fraud hardly ever happens. Despite propaganda claims, there remains no evidence that voter fraud is a minor problem, let alone a serious one.

Most reported cases of voter fraud turn out to be one of the following:
> an innocent misunderstanding (i.e. someone tried to vote who thought they could show up on election day and that ballot would override the mail away ballot they sent in two weeks ago)
> roll purge (someone tried to vote who didn't realize they had been purged and had to re-register or a felon who thought their rights had been restored when they hadn't been)

This has pretty much always been the case in modern elections, and most recently, the Trump administration's own voting integrity commission uncovered no evidence to support claims of widespread voter fraud. Could it be happening? Sure, but not remotely with any frequency that would swing an election. That's been established by law enforcement time and time again in pretty much all states. Additionally, having ID to vote hasn't been demonstrated as an effective deterrent.

So why voter ID laws?

Under the guise of protecting our elections from a threat that doesn't exist, it is actually a voter suppression technique. Why? Because it disproportionately affects three groups: elderly, poor, and minorities. Those of us who don't give a second thought to obtaining a drivers license or state-issued ID have a hard time grasping that for some classes of people, it's a true hardship. For any number of reasons. Cost, transportation, and documentation. There are still plenty of elderly, particularly from rural communities, who do not have a birth certificate for example.

Republicans want voter ID laws for a number of reasons, but the two most important are:
1) It keeps the focus on voter fraud rather than election fraud.
2) The communities most effected are statistically more likely to vote for Democrats.

Democrats don't want the voter ID laws for a number of reasons, but the two most important are:
1) It expands enfranchisement and makes the process even more democratic
2) The communities most effected are statistically more likely to vote for Democrats.

So yeah, both parties have stances on this issue that benefit the party. But ask yourself. Shouldn't our elections allow as many eligible voters to participate so we know the true will of the people? Or is it more important that the conservative agenda of a minority of voters press forward?

This is why you often see population (as opposed to likely voter) polling on issues skew quite differently from actual election results. Republicans are painfully aware that they hold power because of constitutional quirks like the Senate and the Electoral College. In 2017, for the first time, the Senate’s decisions were often made by a coalition of states representing less than half of the country’s population. In 2018, assigning each senator half their state's population would mean the 49 Democratic senators represent 40 million more people than Republicans. But can't get a thing done in the Senate with McConnell blocking all legislation there. The GOP leadership doesn't care about winning Senate seats in California if they can have the four senators in Idaho and Wyoming.

So in a nutshell, voter ID laws have nothing to do with security issues or immigration. To the party elite or either party, they just don't. Never have and probably never will.

-- Former REC Vice Chair