Charlie Kirk shot at (shot?) in Utah

[barbos]

The issue is that when you restrict yourself to a small fraction of possible candidates, you are unlikely to find anybody close to optimal for the job.

That "small fraction" is 21 million Americans. The odds are very low that none are close to optimal for the job.

The odds are roughly zero that none are capable of being above average in any reasonable ranking of past US Vice Presidents.

Dan Quayle was a VP for fuck's sake.

Are you implying than Dan Quayle was even more empty headed than Harris? Sorry I did not follow US politics closely at the time living in USSR and all.

Dan Quayle was an idiot. Despite Derec and Dear Leader’s claims, Harris is bright and accomplished.

If she is so bright (she is not), why are you comparing her to Dan Quayle?

I didn’t.

Well, "you" includes bilby.

 

[Toni]

The issue is that when you restrict yourself to a small fraction of possible candidates, you are unlikely to find anybody close to optimal for the job.

That "small fraction" is 21 million Americans. The odds are very low that none are close to optimal for the job.

The odds are roughly zero that none are capable of being above average in any reasonable ranking of past US Vice Presidents.

Dan Quayle was a VP for fuck's sake.

Are you implying than Dan Quayle was even more empty headed than Harris? Sorry I did not follow US politics closely at the time living in USSR and all.

Dan Quayle was an idiot. Despite Derec and Dear Leader’s claims, Harris is bright and accomplished.

If she is so bright (she is not), why are you comparing her to Dan Quayle?

I didn’t.

Well, "you" includes bilby.

Well, YOU need to be more clear in your replies.

 

[bilby]

I choose not to vote for either side because I refuse to be party of any movement that demands insufferable adherence to constant white knighting while the nation falls into the sewer. Right now, a vote for a Democrat is support for incompetency. A vote for the GOP is support for a rotting shithouse. I don't have to engage in either.

Yeah, you actually do.

You can decide not to vote for either, but you will get one or the other whether you vote or not, and the only way not to "engage" would be to emigrate.

By refusing to pick the one you think is less awful, you just increase your chances of getting the one that you think is more awful.

If you think that not picking a president from the two candidates with a chance of winning will result in your not getting a president at all, you are a bloody idiot.

 

[Tigers!]

I choose not to vote for either side because I refuse to be party of any movement that demands insufferable adherence to constant white knighting while the nation falls into the sewer. Right now, a vote for a Democrat is support for incompetency. A vote for the GOP is support for a rotting shithouse. I don't have to engage in either.

Yeah, you actually do.

You can decide not to vote for either, but you will get one or the other whether you vote or not, and the only way not to "engage" would be to emigrate.

By refusing to pick the one you think is less awful, you just increase your chances of getting the one that you think is more awful.

If you think that not picking a president from the two candidates with a chance of winning will result in your not getting a president at all, you are a bloody idiot.

And it is sad to realise that not voting got more "votes" that either candidate did.

 

[southernhybrid]

I choose not to vote for either side because I refuse to be party of any movement that demands insufferable adherence to constant white knighting while the nation falls into the sewer. Right now, a vote for a Democrat is support for incompetency. A vote for the GOP is support for a rotting shithouse. I don't have to engage in either.

Yeah, you actually do.

You can decide not to vote for either, but you will get one or the other whether you vote or not, and the only way not to "engage" would be to emigrate.

By refusing to pick the one you think is less awful, you just increase your chances of getting the one that you think is more awful.

If you think that not picking a president from the two candidates with a chance of winning will result in your not getting a president at all, you are a bloody idiot.

And it is sad to realise that not voting got more "votes" that either candidate did.

Actually, about 63 or 64% of those eligible to vote actually voted. That is pitiful, but it is a bit more than half. I do agree that it's sad that so many Americans don't bother to vote or don't vote for the only candidates that have a chance of winning. I vote in every single election, no matter how minor, but it's mostly older adults who do that. I think we tend to appreciate our right to vote more than younger generations, especially those of us who are female, since we were the last group to get the right to vote.

I've done this since I was eligible to vote, although to be honest, I did miss some minor elections when I was younger. Sometimes I was unaware of them. Since we have 3 weeks of early voting in Georgia, voting is very easy. Mail in voting is easy as well, but I almost always vote in person. When I worked with younger women, only one voted. I finally convinced another one to vote in the presidential election, but I had to give her a little lecture when she missed the midterms.

We sure do get off topic these days, don't we?

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

I choose not to vote for either side because I refuse to be party of any movement that demands insufferable adherence to constant white knighting while the nation falls into the sewer. Right now, a vote for a Democrat is support for incompetency. A vote for the GOP is support for a rotting shithouse. I don't have to engage in either.

Yeah, you actually do.

You can decide not to vote for either, but you will get one or the other whether you vote or not, and the only way not to "engage" would be to emigrate.

By refusing to pick the one you think is less awful, you just increase your chances of getting the one that you think is more awful.

If you think that not picking a president from the two candidates with a chance of winning will result in your not getting a president at all, you are a bloody idiot.

And it is sad to realise that not voting got more "votes" that either candidate did.

Yeah, this is becoming a tired red herring.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

I choose not to vote for either side because I refuse to be party of any movement that demands insufferable adherence to constant white knighting while the nation falls into the sewer. Right now, a vote for a Democrat is support for incompetency. A vote for the GOP is support for a rotting shithouse. I don't have to engage in either.

Yeah, you actually do.

You can decide not to vote for either, but you will get one or the other whether you vote or not, and the only way not to "engage" would be to emigrate.

By refusing to pick the one you think is less awful, you just increase your chances of getting the one that you think is more awful.

If you think that not picking a president from the two candidates with a chance of winning will result in your not getting a president at all, you are a bloody idiot.

And it is sad to realise that not voting got more "votes" that either candidate did.

Actually, about 63 or 64% of those eligible to vote actually voted. That is pitiful, but it is a bit more than half.

If 64% voted, that means 36% didn't vote. The winner of the last three elections will be around 33% of the voting age populace (lower in 2016). It is a red herring though. Plenty of people are already voting against their interests, so having more people vote certainly isn't a warranty for better governance.

How many people look at 20th Century Germany and shrug to say "Only if more people voted". Conservatives have little in the way of defenses, so we are down to exclusively red herrings and denial.

 

[Harry Bosch]

I choose not to vote for either side because I refuse to be party of any movement that demands insufferable adherence to constant white knighting while the nation falls into the sewer. Right now, a vote for a Democrat is support for incompetency. A vote for the GOP is support for a rotting shithouse. I don't have to engage in either.

Yeah, you actually do.

You can decide not to vote for either, but you will get one or the other whether you vote or not, and the only way not to "engage" would be to emigrate.

By refusing to pick the one you think is less awful, you just increase your chances of getting the one that you think is more awful.

If you think that not picking a president from the two candidates with a chance of winning will result in your not getting a president at all, you are a bloody idiot.

Another way of putting it, not voting means you are invertedly picking the greater evil. At the least, I will always choose the lessor evil.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

The issue is that when you restrict yourself to a small fraction of possible candidates, you are unlikely to find anybody close to optimal for the job.

That "small fraction" is 21 million Americans. The odds are very low that none are close to optimal for the job.

The odds are roughly zero that none are capable of being above average in any reasonable ranking of past US Vice Presidents.

Dan Quayle was a VP for fuck's sake.

Are you implying than Dan Quayle was even more empty headed than Harris? Sorry I did not follow US politics closely at the time living in USSR and all.

I remember being in Sixth Grade during the '88 election, and recognizing that Quayle was overly relying on religion in his debate with Bentsen. A conservative Christian DEI pick to balance the ticket that had a professional on it. Some conservatives didn't like Bush because he knew what he was doing and talking about. He may end up being the last competent elected GOP President.

James Buchanan, Lincoln’s immediate predecessor, was wholly incompetent, and did nothing while the south seceded. Lincoln’s immediate successor, Andrew Johnson, was a semi-literate drunkard who got bombed on inauguration day 1865 and had to be escorted from the platform. He was a virulent racist who opposed all post-war civil rights acts and eventually ended up getting impeached

I get that most of your presidents were scum and/or idiots. So why so much attention on Trump?
He is an ordinary for a POTUS.

If that is what you think, you really need a refund on your American history studies. We've had over the top Presidents before, Adams, WIlson, Nixon who aimed to crush dissent, but usually a war was going on. Yes, we had weak Presidents in the pre-Civil War days, as Congress wielded most of the power.

Trump is the first President to go to these extremes in peace time, and he is doing it over a very broad area, decentralizing the the Executive Branch, line item veto'ing spending, breaking our global alliances. However, I get you like how he is weakening the US.

 

[barbos]

The issue is that when you restrict yourself to a small fraction of possible candidates, you are unlikely to find anybody close to optimal for the job.

That "small fraction" is 21 million Americans. The odds are very low that none are close to optimal for the job.

The odds are roughly zero that none are capable of being above average in any reasonable ranking of past US Vice Presidents.

Dan Quayle was a VP for fuck's sake.

Are you implying than Dan Quayle was even more empty headed than Harris? Sorry I did not follow US politics closely at the time living in USSR and all.

I remember being in Sixth Grade during the '88 election, and recognizing that Quayle was overly relying on religion in his debate with Bentsen. A conservative Christian DEI pick to balance the ticket that had a professional on it. Some conservatives didn't like Bush because he knew what he was doing and talking about. He may end up being the last competent elected GOP President.

James Buchanan, Lincoln’s immediate predecessor, was wholly incompetent, and did nothing while the south seceded. Lincoln’s immediate successor, Andrew Johnson, was a semi-literate drunkard who got bombed on inauguration day 1865 and had to be escorted from the platform. He was a virulent racist who opposed all post-war civil rights acts and eventually ended up getting impeached

I get that most of your presidents were scum and/or idiots. So why so much attention on Trump?
He is an ordinary for a POTUS.

If that is what you think, you really need a refund on your American history studies. We've had over the top Presidents before, Adams, WIlson, Nixon who aimed to crush dissent, but usually a war was going on. Yes, we had weak Presidents in the pre-Civil War days, as Congress wielded most of the power.

Trump is the first President to go to these extremes in peace time, and he is doing it over a very broad area, decentralizing the the Executive Branch, line item veto'ing spending, breaking our global alliances. However, I get you like how he is weakening the US.

I did not say all your presidents were scum. And there is nothing to refund for me.
I actually don't like weakened USA.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Tyler Robinson... a typical conservative (or at least what a conservative used to be) or disinterested moderate?

Nothing up to this point indicates Robinson was remotely liberal, forget about being a radical leftist. Robinson seems like your common conservative... people with a small worldview... until something happens to them personally. He gets into a relationship with someone, and all of a sudden this issue becomes important, like how being gay isn't as big a deal to conservative if their child is gay.

Yet, he is being sold as a leftist. There is nothing indicating he was a liberal. Being in a relationship with someone of the same gender isn't a political position.

So I see Robinson as a disinterested moderate or mild conservative who swung hard on one thing, because it was personal to him. The attack was a self-indulgent action and had little scope beyond how Kirk's words impacted his small world. And labeling him a "leftist", as nearly every elected Republican has tried to do, is slander.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

The issue is that when you restrict yourself to a small fraction of possible candidates, you are unlikely to find anybody close to optimal for the job.

That "small fraction" is 21 million Americans. The odds are very low that none are close to optimal for the job.

The odds are roughly zero that none are capable of being above average in any reasonable ranking of past US Vice Presidents.

Dan Quayle was a VP for fuck's sake.

Are you implying than Dan Quayle was even more empty headed than Harris? Sorry I did not follow US politics closely at the time living in USSR and all.

I remember being in Sixth Grade during the '88 election, and recognizing that Quayle was overly relying on religion in his debate with Bentsen. A conservative Christian DEI pick to balance the ticket that had a professional on it. Some conservatives didn't like Bush because he knew what he was doing and talking about. He may end up being the last competent elected GOP President.

James Buchanan, Lincoln’s immediate predecessor, was wholly incompetent, and did nothing while the south seceded. Lincoln’s immediate successor, Andrew Johnson, was a semi-literate drunkard who got bombed on inauguration day 1865 and had to be escorted from the platform. He was a virulent racist who opposed all post-war civil rights acts and eventually ended up getting impeached

I get that most of your presidents were scum and/or idiots. So why so much attention on Trump?
He is an ordinary for a POTUS.

If that is what you think, you really need a refund on your American history studies. We've had over the top Presidents before, Adams, WIlson, Nixon who aimed to crush dissent, but usually a war was going on. Yes, we had weak Presidents in the pre-Civil War days, as Congress wielded most of the power.

Trump is the first President to go to these extremes in peace time, and he is doing it over a very broad area, decentralizing the the Executive Branch, line item veto'ing spending, breaking our global alliances. However, I get you like how he is weakening the US.

I did not say all your presidents were scum.

You said Trump was baseline. So don't pull that 'I didn't say all' crap. Trump is far from baseline. Very far.

And there is nothing to refund for me.

Apparently got your money's worth then.

 

[Gospel]

I appreciate you saying that, though not so much the attitude.

I appreciate you giving me some slack.
The “attitude” (which is honest - I make no effort to hide it) is a direct outgrowth of years of frustration with people euphemizing the problem with Republican fascism.
I wonder if your own unusually even keel might be the product of a lifetime of threat evasion, necessitated by this society’s collective racism.

I understand the frustration. To clarify, my stance against political assassinations isn’t about keeping myself safe or playing it calm for survival. The deaths of people like Martin Luther King and Malcolm X are why I feel the way I do. Their loss robbed society of critical voices and cut off dialogue that needed to keep happening. That’s what makes assassination such a deep threat to democracy.

What I find especially troubling is the irony here: Kirk himself dismissed empathy, and I disagreed with him. Showing indifference to his death, or to the pain felt by those close to him and/or followed him, would be the very lack of empathy that I've criticized about him.

I abhor people who seek to cause harm for no reason beyond ideology or racism (there's more). Their actions can be monstrous, but they are not literal monsters, they are human beings, molded by the paths they’ve walked and the lessons they’ve absorbed. If we refuse to see them as human, we risk becoming what we claim to oppose.

Speaking as a Black man, to me having empathy doesn’t mean excusing or tolerating racism. It means refusing to let someone else’s hate dictate how I see them & how I see myself. No one is born that way; they were taught it. Simply recognizing that makes it easier for me not to dehumanize people. And that refusal to dehumanize is exactly what too many of the people I oppose fail to practice themselves.

I've heard the argument that Kirk’s killing is the self-fulfillment of his own words about the Second Amendment, that he himself argued gun deaths were the price of freedom. But if you opposed that position when he was alive, you should oppose it now as well. Otherwise, you’ve abandoned principle for spite. Using his statement to justify his assassination is using the same logic you claimed to reject. If gun deaths are not acceptable, then his death should not be acceptable either.

For me, the principle is simple: violence should be met with violence, but words should be met with words. If someone comes with fists or bullets, violent resistance is justified. But if someone only comes with words, no matter how offensive, the answer has to stay in the realm of words. Once we start accepting killings over speech, we’ve crossed into legitimizing the same silencing that took away great leaders. We also end up helping to create a world where every conversation is held at gunpoint. That’s not the future I want for anyone, least of all my children.

I can take words as they come, and I’m ready to defend myself if violence follows, just not the kind that comes from a rooftop over 100 fucking yards away.

 

[Elixir]

I've heard the argument that Kirk’s killing is the self-fulfillment of his own words about the Second Amendment, that he himself argued gun deaths were the price of freedom. But if you opposed that position when he was alive, you should oppose it now as well. Otherwise, you’ve abandoned principle for spite. Using his statement to justify his assassination is using the same logic you claimed to reject.

Without abandoning my principles I still feel free to indulge in a bit of schadenfreude. It’s not exactly spite, which I see as a more active indulgence of lower impulse.
In PRINCIPLE, I do think people tend to reap what they sow; it’s just not usually so immediate or hurtful to so many others.
In any event, there is no justification for assassination. Even if it was the person I’d most fervently wish to no longer exist, assassination wouldn’t get me what I want. It might very well produce some desirable results, but the downside would include a lot of known and unknown bad things.
Is the world better without Charlie? It might be better had he never survived infancy, but this assassination doesn’t further anything worthwhile IMO.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

I've heard the argument that Kirk’s killing is the self-fulfillment of his own words about the Second Amendment, that he himself argued gun deaths were the price of freedom. But if you opposed that position when he was alive, you should oppose it now as well.

Disagree completely. One can rationally say that Kirk considered his death "rational" without Us considering his death to be anything but reprehensible. The obvious problem with Kirk's statement on approvable fodder to the 2nd Amendment is that they never presumably include themselves or those close to them within the range of 'acceptable' losses to ensure we have the 2nd Amendment.

For me, the principle is simple: violence should be met with violence, but words should be met with words.

Gandhi didn't believe violence should be met with violence. He explicitly argued against that type of response. MLK Jr also would have argued against your position. He and the others that led that movement and were met with violence were explicitly instructed not to respond in kind.

If someone comes with fists or bullets, violent resistance is justified. But if someone only comes with words, no matter how offensive, the answer has to stay in the realm of words. Once we start accepting killings over speech, we’ve crossed into legitimizing the same silencing that took away great leaders. We also end up helping to create a world where every conversation is held at gunpoint. That’s not the future I want for anyone, least of all my children.

I can take words as they come, and I’m ready to defend myself if violence follows, just not the kind that comes from a rooftop over 100 fucking yards away.

And best we can tell, this wasn't anything but a white dude indulging himself in some privilege, killing a person that held a position that personally impacted his life. This wasn't partisan. This was personal. There is no evidence to suggest otherwise.

So I'm getting tired of this killing being treated as anything but a non-partisan attack.

 

[Jarhyn]

When asked to mourn someone over their death, it's generally expected to provide some specific context of their life.

When this context is omitted from someone's life, especially when that context is otherwise known, so as to get such an unearned outpouring of concern and care, it is a sign that the person was not great, and that the person doing the omission is likewise not-great.

Charlie Kirk died. We can see now the populations mourning his murder with mealy mouths, and those who say "he died as he lived" precipitating and I can't say I'm surprised who is putting in an effort for which "team" there.

He told people to accept the events of his own death because it is the price of policies he supported.

It also seems convenient that they had a ready martyr in Kirk, who was redundant in light of Fuentes, but useful as a corpse they could mourn, so long as they publish NOTHING of what he actually believed.

He was ultimately shot by someone in the Groyper ecosystem, an ecosystem tied to manipulation by Nick Fuentes and the administration.

I have no confidence this was any more organic than Epstein, or Trump's Ear, either.

 

[Gospel]

Disagree completely. One can rationally say that Kirk considered his death "rational" without Us considering his death to be anything but reprehensible. The obvious problem with Kirk's statement on approvable fodder to the 2nd Amendment is that they never presumably include themselves or those close to them within the range of 'acceptable' losses to ensure we have the 2nd Amendment.

So what? That would only make Kirk hypocritical, it doesn’t address the broader issue of people adopting that logic and spreading it politically.

Gandhi didn't believe violence should be met with violence. He explicitly argued against that type of response. MLK Jr also would have argued against your position. He and the others that led that movement and were met with violence were explicitly instructed not to respond in kind.

Just to clarify, I never claimed that MLK or Gandhi shared my view on violence. I know very well they both argued for nonviolence in the face of violence. My point isn’t to rewrite their philosophy, it’s to explain mine, which is: violence should meet violence, words should meet words. I respect their stance, but I also believe their assassinations prove how devastating it is when words are met with bullets.

And best we can tell, this wasn't anything but a white dude indulging himself in some privilege, killing a person that held a position that personally impacted his life. This wasn't partisan. This was personal. There is no evidence to suggest otherwise.

So I'm getting tired of this killing being treated as anything but a non-partisan attack.

That’s your read, but it doesn’t define how the country is processing it. Public perception is already political, and in a democracy the assassination of a political figure inevitably shapes norms. You realize Kirk was a political figure, right? He may not have been an elected official, but not all political figures hold/held office. Just look at what the Trump Administration is saying in response to his killing and that should tell you everything you need to know about the shitshow heading our way. You getting tired of this killing being treated as anything but a non-partisan attack is the least of our problems.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

When asked to mourn someone over their death, it's generally expected to provide some specific context of their life.

I'm not mourning his death, I'm sickened that he was murdered.

I have no confidence this was any more organic than Epstein, or Trump's Ear, either.

There is about as much info linking Robinson to Fuentes as there is to Robinson being a liberal. The shooter was apolitical, but then started caring about gay/trans issues, allegedly... because it was something that mattered to him. This isn't unusual, as many people only care about stuff they personally witness. They have very small circles. What seemed unusual is the extent he took things. But he would not be the first person to react poorly to a threat.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Disagree completely. One can rationally say that Kirk considered his death "rational" without Us considering his death to be anything but reprehensible. The obvious problem with Kirk's statement on approvable fodder to the 2nd Amendment is that they never presumably include themselves or those close to them within the range of 'acceptable' losses to ensure we have the 2nd Amendment.

So what? That would only make Kirk hypocritical, it doesn’t address the broader issue of people adopting that logic and spreading it politically.

My point was you are saying that stating as such is condoning his murder. I'm saying that doesn't have to be true. Anyone condoning his murder, it really doesn't matter how they do it, they are wrong.

Gandhi didn't believe violence should be met with violence. He explicitly argued against that type of response. MLK Jr also would have argued against your position. He and the others that led that movement and were met with violence were explicitly instructed not to respond in kind.

Just to clarify, I never claimed that MLK or Gandhi shared my view on violence. I know very well they both argued for nonviolence in the face of violence. My point isn’t to rewrite their philosophy, it’s to explain mine, which is: violence should meet violence, words should meet words. I respect their stance, but I also believe their assassinations prove how devastating it is when words are met with bullets.

And that is probably why Gandhi doesn't invite your to his birthday.

And best we can tell, this wasn't anything but a white dude indulging himself in some privilege, killing a person that held a position that personally impacted his life. This wasn't partisan. This was personal. There is no evidence to suggest otherwise.

So I'm getting tired of this killing being treated as anything but a non-partisan attack.

That’s your read, but it doesn’t define how the country is processing it.

The country is processing this rather poorly. The GOP have put this guy up as bigger than Jesus. The Democrats are saying gun violence is abhorrent, per the norm. Many have made poor statements, indicating that Kirk was a victim of the rhetoric he spouted. But, the biggest thing on going is the anti-left rhetoric from the GOP... for a shooting that appeared to be nothing but some white boy taking matters into their own hands because he was in a relationship.

Public perception is already political, and in a democracy the assassination of a political figure inevitably shapes norms. You realize Kirk was a political figure, right? He may not have been an elected official, but not all political figures hold/held office. Just look at what the Trump Administration is saying in response to his killing and that should tell you everything you need to know about the shitshow heading our way.

This might become our Reichstag fire. His death has been weaponized by the alt-right. It doesn't matter why the shooter killed Kirk to the alt-right. They have created their own narrative and have run with it. All that is left are the arrests before we know the Democracy is dead.

 

[Gospel]

My point was you are saying that stating as such is condoning his murder.

No, you are incorrect. The reason is simple, Kirk’s own framing of the 2nd Amendment was that gun deaths are acceptable losses for freedom. By that logic, he had already condoned his own death. So yes, anyone repeating that logic now is joining him in agreement, and by extension, endorsing his death. That’s not me saying it, that’s what the logic of the “price of freedom” argument itself says.