Why It’s Wrong To Blame Trump For The Mass Shootings

Just think about it YR 4 more years
Originally Posted by Hotrod511

And if not? Then what?

Do all the neocons run for their bunkers? Does FOX close up shop? Does bb1961 take off his MAGA hat and put down his musket?

Naw, life will go on. Just with alot less petty bullshit. Actually a SHIT TON less petty bullshit.

People will vote to CHANGE THE CHANNEL next year. If you're not sick and tired of the daily Trumpcapades, then you've got a few months left.

May be the best thing that could happen to this forum. (OK, maybe the second best thing )

And if not? Then what? Originally Posted by Yssup Rider

Why do you ask silly questions? The answer is obvious. Then the devil wins.

Originally Posted by matchingmole

You worship the gubmint, WTF! You globalist cunt...

Trump’s remarks today were disingenuous and insincere. He was not convincing at all. Especially when he said the threat of the internet and social media needed to be controlled. He’s the most vile fucking internet troll online.

SMFH

Where does your info on the El Paso shooter come from?
Like ll says, there isn't any proof the on-line manifesto came from him. And the police haven't released any statements.

So knock off the BS about who he is. The people you named are expressing their opinion.
Your article expresses opinion as fact.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/opini...Pr6?li=BBnb7Kz


Two mass shootings in 24 hours. Three in the space of a week. How are we supposed to think about this? How do we make sense of it?

Some commentators and politicians on the left are blaming President Trump and the GOP for these shootings, as if that’s reasonable, as if one side of our political divide has a monopoly on divisiveness. Former representative Beto O’Rourke said President Trump was a “racist” and had “a lot to do with what happened in El Paso yesterday.” Sen. Cory Booker was yet more blunt, saying, “Donald Trump is responsible for this.” Sen. Elizabeth Warren called out the president "for advancing racism and white supremacy." Plenty of others in prestige media echoed these sentiments.
But let’s take a step back. Who are these gunmen, and what do they say about what they’re doing? Like the Christchurch shooter, the El Paso shooter was an eco-fascist with strong anti-corporate and anti-immigrant views. Both were ideologically committed political terrorists—white nationalist terrorists, if you like. Like ISIS or al-Qaeda fighters, they might be profoundly wrong about everything, but they aren’t lunatics. The same was true of Dylann Roof no less than Osama bin Laden. We can’t sooth ourselves by saying these men are merely insane.
From ISIS to El Paso, then, the terrorists in question are driven by a purposeful—obviously evil—ideology. The Islamists feel it’s their duty to fight back against the West. The El Paso and Christchurch shooters feel it’s their duty to fight back against mass immigration and what they view as the “replacement” of their culture.
Indeed, the El Paso shooter expressed a feeling of invasion and occupation—a feeling usually associated with the anti-immigrant right in America but one not wholly alien to the left. After all, it is on exactly those grounds that Reps. Rashida Tlaib and Ilhan Omar, among others, justify the Palestinian liberation struggle.
Blaming Trump for such views is a brittle chain of reasoning because it’s the same reasoning that would blame Islamist terrorism on the Quran. One could argue that Islam isn’t the cause of Islamist terrorism, and that the latter is just a warped and extreme manifestation of certain relatively subdued strains in the latter. The ordinary Muslim understands he is called to worship Allah and keep his commands, even if it sets him apart or imposes obligations on him. In contrast, the Islamist terrorist understands his duty is to impose Islam on others, even if it means slaughtering civilians or other Muslims.
So too one might say that Trump is not the cause of the shootings, but that the shootings and Trump arise from the same root cause: the feeling among many Americans that their country and its heritage are under attack, and that nobody is fighting back. The ordinary patriot reacts to this by voting for Trump, maybe wearing a MAGA hat, maybe putting a Trump sign in his yard or attending a Trump rally. The anti-immigrant extremist reacts by publishing a manifesto and killing innocent people.
The admiration of some white nationalists for Trump is no more proof of Trump’s divisiveness than the admiration of al-Qaeda fighters for the Quran is proof of Islam's divisiveness. The difference, of course, is that at least al-Qaeda fighters can point to passages in the Quran that back up their claims, whereas Trump has never once called for vigilante violence in the name of white supremacy or border security, and in fact has repeatedly and explicitly condemned it.
As for Trump’s rhetoric, let’s grant that his words and political posture are sometimes divisive. Indeed, let's grant that it’s part and parcel of his entire approach to American politics. But are we not to breathe a word about the divisive rhetoric coming from the other side?
Is it not divisive and inflammatory for Democrats to refuse to enforce our borders while promising to give taxpayer-paid health care to illegal immigrants? Is it not divisive and inflammatory for sports stars and corporations to denounce the Betsy Ross flag and the national anthem as racist? Doesn’t that exacerbate a feeling of helplessness and dispossession, and fuel a whole spectrum of responses—from ordinary patriotism to outright xenophobia and racism?
Indeed, the left now treats even mild patriotism as racist, in effect saying to the ordinary patriot: “Either surrender to a left-wing ideology that neither respects nor loves your country, or embrace white nationalism.” Is it any wonder that a few isolated and angry young men will react to these pressures in the worst possible way?
This isn’t to lay all the blame on the left, of course, only to say that the divisive rhetoric cuts both ways. Consider the Christchurch shooter’s manifesto, “The Great Replacement,” which the El Paso gunman cited as an inspiration for his attack. That document lays out what one might call a conspiracy theory, that international corporate and political elites in the West are intentionally replacing their native populations with immigrants in order to enrich themselves.
Ironically, the left often presents this idea not as a conspiracy theory but as a positive good. In October, the New York Times ran a Michelle Goldberg column under the headline, “We Can Replace Them,” which closed with this line: “In a week, American voters can do to white nationalists what they fear most. Show them they’re being replaced.”
This isn't a new idea on the left, and it isn't relegated to the fringe. Back in 2002, Ruy Teixeira and John Judis came out with "The Emerging Democratic Majority," which popularized and mainstreamed the idea that white Americans would be replaced by a permanent majority coalition of nonwhite voters. Ten years later, after President Obama's reelection, Teixeira took to the the pages of The Atlantic to argue that things were playing out just as he had predicted, and that if Democrats could keep giving Americans what they truly wanted—more welfare, more regulation, more government control over daily life—then "the emerging Democratic majority could be here to stay."
More recently, turning the white nationalists' "replacement" rhetoric on its head has become commonplace among Antifa protestors chanting "we will replace you," a sentiment powerfully reinforced by the anti-Immigration and Customs Enforcement protestors who recently tore down an American flag outside an ICE facility and replaced it with the Mexican flag.
Left-wing media takes the idea one step further. Last month, a blogger at Mother Jones wrote, “Reactionary American whites, as always, won’t give up their power unless it’s taken from them… Liberals need to be as Lincolnesque as possible in this endeavor, but we also need to be Lincolnesque in our commitment to winning America’s latest race war.”
The point here is that if you talk in terms of a race war, if you cast American politics as a zero-sum contest between racial groups, if you vilify half the country because they disagree with your radical views on immigration and welfare, then what you end up with isn’t just identity politics for minorities, you get identity politics for white people, too.


DPST political tactics explained- Clearly!!!
DPST Party are the racists - playing Race-baiting games to vilify anyone with another opinion.

It is the death of the First amendment they seek. and a Marxist Leninist Venezuela type state led by the privileged nomenklatura. Originally Posted by oeb11

-

-

- Originally Posted by Austin Ellen

Brilliant.

Let's say all those numbers are correct.
Are they a reason to not talk about mass shootings?
This is a thread about shootings.
Don't you think neil has time to talk about those issues some other time?
Why hasn't he brought them up before now?
The medical lobby props up malpractice and guns are responsible for gun deaths. The flu gets people who don't vaccinate or who have weak immune systems. Suicides are mental heath issues as is part of this problem.
That doesn't mean we shouldn't discuss it.
Maybe once if you can't think of anything that might help, maybe you might not bitch about people discussing it.

First : We ( and the ignorant media) need to BLAME THE CRIMNAL
Second: We need to STOP THE RHETORIC on ALL sides ( LSM hysteria first we don't need to hear for the next 3 weeks guns kill people and its Big-T s fault)
Third : Mental health needs to be addressed ( see above the media I believe helps push these mental rject over the edge)

In the past 48 hrs : On average 500 died Med Errors, 300 to Flu, 250 to Suicide, 200 car accidents , 40 to gun homicides, "NYT ( Neil Degasse Tyson )

The point being yes preventable yet the LSM says NOTHING so see above about rhetoric
Just my opinion , pray for the families

People should READ UNFREEDOM of the Press explains why the LSM + DPST types push the rhetoric
and sadly most people don't even understand the brainwashing ? Originally Posted by rexdutchman

That was because they found something better for their purpose than a gun.
And we have have taken effective measures to remove that weapon from their inventory, right?

That was one incident 19 years ago.
500 plus have died in mass shootings so far this year.

- Originally Posted by Austin Ellen

Reagan also said,
"Reagan said. “Yeah,” Nixon interjected. Reagan forged ahead with his complaint: “To see those, those monkeys from those African countries—damn them, they’re still uncomfortable wearing shoes!” Nixon gave a huge laugh."
What a dick.
And didn't he say something about not negotiating with terrorists?

- Originally Posted by Austin Ellen

The shrill sound of these endless excuses is painful.

He’s the most vile fucking internet troll online.
SMFH Originally Posted by Yssup Rider

You sir have him beat by a light years...

Ignoring

The shrill sound of these endless excuses is painful. Originally Posted by Yssup Rider

What was the excuse for the shooting in Dayton OH...
Please weigh in YR