Charlie Kirk shot at (shot?) in Utah

[Emily Lake]

19% of people aged 18-29 said it's justifiable, irrespective of their politics.

Hey, that’s the demographic they say elected The Pedophile!
Ya really put your foot in it there, girl.

Why do you think I give a flying fuck about Trump? I don't want a goddamned civil war.

 

[Emily Lake]

So you won’t vote for a Dem, which is essentially a vote for MAGGOTry

"If you don't vote for Dems, you're a fascist nazi"?

 

[Elixir]

Let me see if I'm following you...

You’re not.

Until Trump is successfully assassinated

Your idea of what I think is insulting. Perhaps you should restrict yourself to citing facts for a change.

we should continue pursuing a civil war?

You’re “pursuing civil war”? Then you need to step it up because right now I just see paper things like the Constitution being destroyed, along with the lives of a lot of people who aren’t me. Which side are you on?

The only possible way we can avoid civil war is via political murder?

A rational conclusion?
{{{… slowly backs away}}}
Never mind Emmerz, I know how you love to put lies in other people’s mouths.

BTW, we would all be better off if Aliens landed on the Whitehouse lawn and offered Trump unlimited wealth and a thousand year lifespan in a verdant paradise of young naked white girls and an unlimited supply of slaves, on a planet far far away, and Donald Trump took them up on the offer, and went on to live in unimaginable bliss for a thousand years.

Happier now?

 

[Toni]

As I’ve written several times before, I never ‘watch’ news, mostly because so much of it is opinion, not fact or as the story develops.

And yet, you are quick to form opinions despite very selective information.
Unfortunately, yes, a lot of news reporting is biased one way or another. That makes sussing things out more challenging, but it is not an excuse to stay uniformed about things that are happening in the world. At least not when you still want to discuss them with others.

Whatever you may think, I do not hate or resent or have grudges against white men or men in general.

And yet, you always find ways to denigrate white men specifically in these discussions.

I am, as I have stated before, an egalitarian.

Your posts do not really reflect that.

I believe that all people have inherent worth and all are entitled to pursue the lives they want, so long as they do not harm or infringe on the rights of others.

Unless you morally disagree with their choices, for example with consensual sex work.

[personal anecdotes snipped, because they did not require comment]

I don’t know every right winger in existence but I more than aware of white supremacist who had children with black partners.

Question: how do you know this person was a "white supremacist" exactly?

Please note that I focused on mass shootings of mostly schools and an occasional church, mall or concert

But this is not a thread about a mass shooting. So why focus on that? And note that in your post that I debunked with actual numbers you were talking about crimes in general. Will you at least acknowledge that you were wrong?

—and the vast majority of the shooters have been white and male.

You have not shown that to be true. And I also do no think that it is fruitful to define "relevant" shootings more and more narrowly until you can blame the demographic you want to blame. If a mall or a concert is shot up by a gang member, well that's not really a mass shooting, you would say. Why? Bystanders are endangered either way.
In any case, this is not a mass shooting thread, so we should not derail further.

AFAIK, my reading has suggested that part of the motivation is trying to claim some fame/out-do one another. I absolutely cannot understand why anyone could shoot up an elementary school. It is insane. But it tends not to be female shooters nor shooters of color who commit such atrocities.

Again, this thread is not about a mass shooting, much less of an elementary school. This is about a targeted assassination.
That said, you have not shown that whites are overrepresented in school shootings. And there even have been some female shooters, one of which inspired this song.

This is contrasted with violence associated with other criminal activity where the motivation is much more clear and does include collateral damage —bystanders, children.

My question is, why make a distinction? A disturbed young person growing up in a nice suburban home may become a lone schoool shooter. The same person growing up in a neighborhood with street gangs may become an enforcer for a gang and kill that way.

Not at all. In fact I am most likely to point out white make when someone else brings up the lack of qualifications or criminality or lack of morality of those who are not white or male or , heaven forbid, neither.

Yes, I am very selective about the news I read. Many years ago, part of my job was actually to read certain American newspapers. With real newsprint. It became a habit: to evaluate which had reliable information, which were pushing a particular narrative. Then, too, I’ve lived in my community for many years now and our local news reports in many things not generally covered by larger city news. Sometimes, I have been present at events reported on and occasionally was shocked because the article did not reflect what actually happened, or only very selectively to push a particular POV, rather than being a factual accounting. And occasionally was quite wrong. I’ve been quoted incorrectly and out of context in a way that was in a small way harmful to me ( very minor and of no lasting consequence but I hate being lied about or being misrepresented).

I’m careful about what I believe, and who and usually do so provisionally, and check various sources.

Here’s a link about mass shootings of schools and workplaces in the US since 1966.

Mass Shooting Factsheet | Rockefeller Institute of Government

Mass Shooting Factsheet High-level details about mass shootings from 1966 to today Last updated: September 15, 2025 502 Number of Shootings 1,714 Total Fatalities 4,371 Total Victims Definition A mass shooting is an incident of targeted violence carried out by one or more shooters at one or more...

rockinst.org

94.6% of shooters are male. 54.5% of shooters are white.

 

[crazyfingers]

As I already pointed out, we've lost Roe and we're going to lose Obergefell.

I think we're less at risk of losing Obergefell, because we actually have a law in place that requires all states to recognize same-sex marriages as legally binding. We never had an actual law regarding abortion, and that was the undoing of Roe.

Nationally, both abortion and same sex marriage were protected by supreme court decisions, not laws. The supreme court decided to change it's mind on abortion. It could so the same with same sex marriage. Some justices even suggested that. What you say makes no sense.

 

[pood]

So you won’t vote for a Dem, which is essentially a vote for MAGGOTry

"If you don't vote for Dems, you're a fascist nazi"?

I didn’t say that.

 

[Toni]

Of course, the critical words in LP's post are "If the only reason"... then yes, LP would be right. No one should get a position strictly because of their race.

I'm glad somebody gets it.

The issue we have here is that this isn't strictly about race... as much as people want to assume it is. Harris didn't become a VP candidate because she was black. She did stuff, had a career. No one wants to look at anything else in the resume. LP is obsessed with the answer on the ethnicity line.

But here you are wrong. "Black" was a required characteristic, but not the only one. That is discrimination. (But I consider all VP picks to be discriminatory, I'm not singling her out.)

And yet, she’s the only one you’ve mentioned. And not a single word about how, with a single exception, being a white make was a requirement to be POTUS or VP.

Putting any race or sex requirement on the VP position is wrong. It's just that it's normally not done openly so it doesn't get criticized. He openly told the world he was going to discriminate on race and sex and then proceeded to do so.

Yet you have zero problem with the demonstrated fact that with a single exception every single elected POTUS and VP has been white and male.

Seems like a very very strong preference to me.

 

[pood]

So you won’t vote for a Dem, which is essentially a vote for MAGGOTry

"If you don't vote for Dems, you're a fascist nazi"?

I get it that the Colonel doesn’t support MAGGOTry or Nazi fascism. What am I pointing out is that when he says he won’t vote for Democrats, that is defaulting a vote to the very thing he opposes, while at the same time he accuses progressives of driving voters into the hands of the MAGGOTS.

 

[Emily Lake]

Let me see if I'm following you...

You’re not.

Until Trump is successfully assassinated

Your idea of what I think is insulting. Perhaps you should restrict yourself to citing facts for a change.

we should continue pursuing a civil war?

You’re “pursuing civil war”? Then you need to step it up because right now I just see paper things like the Constitution being destroyed, along with the lives of a lot of people who aren’t me. Which side are you on?

The only possible way we can avoid civil war is via political murder?

A rational conclusion?
{{{… slowly backs away}}}
Never mind Emmerz, I know how you love to put lies in other people’s mouths.

BTW, we would all be better off if Aliens landed on the Whitehouse lawn and offered Trump unlimited wealth and a thousand year lifespan in a verdant paradise of young naked white girls and an unlimited supply of slaves, on a planet far far away, and Donald Trump took them up on the offer, and went on to live in unimaginable bliss for a thousand years.

Happier now?

Oh FFS. What exactly was it you intended to convey with this:

There will be no chance of “halting this runaway train” as long as the orange engineer is bent on causing a train crash.

Especially when said in the context of me expressing concern about the number of people, especially younger people, who believe that violence is a justifiable way to achieve their desired political ends?

 

[Emily Lake]

As I already pointed out, we've lost Roe and we're going to lose Obergefell.

I think we're less at risk of losing Obergefell, because we actually have a law in place that requires all states to recognize same-sex marriages as legally binding. We never had an actual law regarding abortion, and that was the undoing of Roe.

Nationally, both abortion and same sex marriage were protected by supreme court decisions, not laws. The supreme court decided to change it's mind on abortion. It could so the same with same sex marriage. Some justices even suggested that. What you say makes no sense.

It's much harder to get rid of a law than it is to reinterpret an interpretation.

 

[Emily Lake]

So you won’t vote for a Dem, which is essentially a vote for MAGGOTry

"If you don't vote for Dems, you're a fascist nazi"?

I didn’t say that.

Not in those words specifically, no.

But you did say that not voting Dem is equivalent to voting for MAGA. And you've also expressed that MAGA is essentially synonymous with fascism and nazism. Therefore, not voting Dem is equivalent to being a fascist nazi.

If A = B, and if B = C, then A = C.

 

[pood]

See my post above.

 

[Emily Lake]

Yet you have zero problem with the demonstrated fact that with a single exception every single elected POTUS and VP has been white and male.

Seems like a very very strong preference to me.

Look, you know I disagree with LP on damned near every topic like this, but I think you're stretching things here. It's entirely possible to be quite happy and open to non-white or non-male (or both) leaders while still opposing affirmative action or diversity objectives as the reason why we get non-white or non-male leaders.

Seriously, I would love to have a competent, powerful, intelligent woman in charge of the US. But I'd like her to get there on her own merits, not because some collection of guilt-ridden people decided that we had to have a female president to make some sort of social statement.

 

[Emily Lake]

So you won’t vote for a Dem, which is essentially a vote for MAGGOTry

"If you don't vote for Dems, you're a fascist nazi"?

I get it that the Colonel doesn’t support MAGGOTry or Nazi fascism. What am I pointing out is that when he says he won’t vote for Democrats, that is defaulting a vote to the very thing he opposes, while at the same time he accuses progressives of driving voters into the hands of the MAGGOTS.

We used to have whigs... and even the Democratic party used to be extremely different from what it is today, at one point in time Dems were the conservatives and Republicans were the liberals in terms of social issues.

It's possible for a party to either change its platform in a substantial way, or to self-destruct and get replaced by something else.

 

[pood]

Yet you have zero problem with the demonstrated fact that with a single exception every single elected POTUS and VP has been white and male.

Seems like a very very strong preference to me.

Look, you know I disagree with LP on damned near every topic like this, but I think you're stretching things here. It's entirely possible to be quite happy and open to non-white or non-male (or both) leaders while still opposing affirmative action or diversity objectives as the reason why we get non-white or non-male leaders.

Seriously, I would love to have a competent, powerful, intelligent woman in charge of the US. But I'd like her to get there on her own merits, not because some collection of guilt-ridden people decided that we had to have a female president to make some sort of social statement.

But why should we think that Kamala Harris, for example, did not get where she was on her own merits?

 

[Emily Lake]

Yet you have zero problem with the demonstrated fact that with a single exception every single elected POTUS and VP has been white and male.

Seems like a very very strong preference to me.

Look, you know I disagree with LP on damned near every topic like this, but I think you're stretching things here. It's entirely possible to be quite happy and open to non-white or non-male (or both) leaders while still opposing affirmative action or diversity objectives as the reason why we get non-white or non-male leaders.

Seriously, I would love to have a competent, powerful, intelligent woman in charge of the US. But I'd like her to get there on her own merits, not because some collection of guilt-ridden people decided that we had to have a female president to make some sort of social statement.

But why should we think that Kamala Harris, for example, did not get where she was on her own merits?

Realistically... because Biden literally said he was only going to consider black women for the role of VP. And because her record as AG and senator were pretty blase and even unattractive. And because there were several other female contenders who did considerably better than her in the run-up, but who were not considered because they were white.

If Biden hadn't actually declared his intention to have a black woman as VP, there'd have certainly been less scrutiny, and less questioning of her qualification and suitability. Then again, if Biden hadn't been set on having a black woman... he'd have likely selected someone that the public liked better, and who would have had a significantly better chance of beating Trump.

 

[Toni]

Yet you have zero problem with the demonstrated fact that with a single exception every single elected POTUS and VP has been white and male.

Seems like a very very strong preference to me.

Look, you know I disagree with LP on damned near every topic like this, but I think you're stretching things here. It's entirely possible to be quite happy and open to non-white or non-male (or both) leaders while still opposing affirmative action or diversity objectives as the reason why we get non-white or non-male leaders.

Seriously, I would love to have a competent, powerful, intelligent woman in charge of the US. But I'd like her to get there on her own merits, not because some collection of guilt-ridden people decided that we had to have a female president to make some sort of social statement.

So far, the women who have run for POTUS have been extremely well qualified. Unlike the current sitting POTUS and VP.

 

[laughing dog]

Why yes, yes it is in fact racist to assume that certain ‘slots’ are for whites only.

You (and ld) are misinterpreting Kirk's point here. What he obviously meant is a slot that would have likely went to somebody white if not for the pernicious practice of racial preferences, and people were treated as individuals.

Mr Kirk did not say “stealing a white person’s LIKELY slot.” . He clearly meant a white person’s slot which means he did not consider that the slot those black women got might have gone to Asians, Latinos or Native Americans.

So, it was racist.

 

[laughing dog]

Sorry, but in this case he's basically correct.

It is racist to assume there is a “white person’s slot”.

You very conveniently failed to quote the rest of what I said, making it badly out of context.

No, I didn’t. See the preceding post for a clear explanation

 

[Toni]

Yet you have zero problem with the demonstrated fact that with a single exception every single elected POTUS and VP has been white and male.

Seems like a very very strong preference to me.

Look, you know I disagree with LP on damned near every topic like this, but I think you're stretching things here. It's entirely possible to be quite happy and open to non-white or non-male (or both) leaders while still opposing affirmative action or diversity objectives as the reason why we get non-white or non-male leaders.

Seriously, I would love to have a competent, powerful, intelligent woman in charge of the US. But I'd like her to get there on her own merits, not because some collection of guilt-ridden people decided that we had to have a female president to make some sort of social statement.

But why should we think that Kamala Harris, for example, did not get where she was on her own merits?

Realistically... because Biden literally said he was only going to consider black women for the role of VP. And because her record as AG and senator were pretty blase and even unattractive. And because there were several other female contenders who did considerably better than her in the run-up, but who were not considered because they were white.

If Biden hadn't actually declared his intention to have a black woman as VP, there'd have certainly been less scrutiny, and less questioning of her qualification and suitability. Then again, if Biden hadn't been set on having a black woman... he'd have likely selected someone that the public liked better, and who would have had a significantly better chance of beating Trump.

There are lots of extremely accomplished, well qualified women, period and yes, including black women, white women, Jewish women, Hispanic women , Asian women, gay women and so on.

Biden baldly stated the category of persons he was going to chose from. No one has ever, ever remarked on or discussed the fact that in virtually every single POTUS race, the unstated but very much required category has been white and male.