JD Vance on CNN this morning with Dana Bash, just openly admitting the stories he and Trump made up the stories they are pushing regarding Haitian immigrants.
When Bash (sort of) calls him on it, Vance said "If I have to create stories to get the media to pay attention then thatâs what Iâll do!"
Even Bash, who is MAGA adjacent was nonplused and there was a long moment of dead air where she tried to get Vance to see the absurdity of what he just said.
Instead Vance just doubled down on it.
Vance claims he and Trump have to "create stories" about migrants eating cats and dogs "so that the American media actually pays attention to the suffering of the American people."
Basically, if I have to lie and demonize innocent people and they are then targeted for violence by my hateful unhinged followers, I will. Collateral damage. So what? Because that's what it takes to scare Republicans into voting for me.
I don't care how you slice it, that's right out of the Josef Goebbels Reich Minister of Propaganda playbook.
It's imbeciles' reasoning. Or major financial fuck-ups.
Money over life, y 'know. It will be a question asked of us:
Are you willing to be a murderer (have you been)?
Future societies will be strict on this, not showing much patience towards you cowboy shootists.
Yes you in need of a peaceful brain-implant!
It's taken me a long time to realize that English is not your primary language.
No they're not. This is dishonest, which is pretty much par for the course with you. The anti-gun types here are screaming in the same way they have always reacted, with each mass shooting. They offer no alternatives but their very own position of banning the offending weapon and restricting legal access to buying firearms. They don't discuss what might happen to the likely incidence of school shootings if such a ban were enacted (Oh noes - there's other guns! Hello 3D printed ghost guns ! Oh noes - Europe - mass stabbings! ) They don't discuss the availability of unregistered weapons (also a considerable problem in Canada - guns smuggled in from America). They don't discuss root causes - such as mental illnesses and societal ostracization of the shooters. Their entire focus is on the weapon, and not at all on the shooter. The discussion on mass shooting here is intellectually dishonest, just like you.
This is rich, coming from someone who mostly behaves like his/her muppet avatar.
"The anti-gun types here" are focused on a lot more than America's ready access to guns. I think everyone recognizes that even a ban and seizure on assault-style weanons won't stop mass killings in the US. The root causes for this kind of violence are far deeper than ready access to guns.
That's why "the anti-gun types here" want to go beyond common-sense gun control measures and support more funding for counseling, violence intervention and community services. A mass killing like a school shooting is just the end point in a long string of social and economic problems. As I see it, a mass shooter thinks they've run out of options to improve their lives or get along with others.
People here bring up these shootings to point out how badly broken our society CAN BE. People like you who criticize "anti-gun types" refuse to look at the deeper problems and think that if we just harden our schools (like JD Vance suggested) and arm our teachers, things will be fine. People like you DON'T want to fund psychological counseling or community outreach efforts. People like you things the 2nd Amendment trumps everything else and that our government and society shouldn't impose any responsibility on gun owners.
Root causes ————- make me puke!
As if anything else would be responsible - just say -out of the blue sky- for the killings. Dead bodies everyday from the fucking country that names itself home of the free.
Of course they do, but if we attempt to restrict access to guns while the person is seeking or put into treatment, we're violating their 2A rights. According to some.
It's imbeciles' reasoning. Or major financial fuck-ups.
Money over life, y 'know. It will be a question asked of us:
Are you willing to be a murderer (have you been)?
Future societies will be strict on this, not showing much patience towards you cowboy shootists.
They don't discuss root causes - such as mental illnesses and societal ostracization of the shooters.
Of course they do, but if we attempt to restrict access to guns while the person is seeking or put into treatment, we're violating their 2A rights. According to some.
No they're not. This is dishonest, which is pretty much par for the course with you. The anti-gun types here are screaming in the same way they have always reacted, with each mass shooting. They offer no alternatives but their very own position of banning the offending weapon and restricting legal access to buying firearms. They don't discuss what might happen to the likely incidence of school shootings if such a ban were enacted (Oh noes - there's other guns! Hello 3D printed ghost guns ! Oh noes - Europe - mass stabbings! ) They don't discuss the availability of unregistered weapons (also a considerable problem in Canada - guns smuggled in from America). They don't discuss root causes - such as mental illnesses and societal ostracization of the shooters. Their entire focus is on the weapon, and not at all on the shooter. The discussion on mass shooting here is intellectually dishonest, just like you.
Well, speaking of dishonest, a lot of people have made a lot of suggestions. Suggestions based on examples from other places that worked. But you and several other people insist on 'no limits on guns of any kind'. So the rest of us have said "well then, what is your solution". To which we get more cops, mental health, blah, blah, blah. But we've done all that and still have the problem. We have tried to focus on the shooters with red flag laws and the like, but we are told that those are unconstitutional restrictions on a person's liberty. So we wait, and more people die, and pro2a people tell us 'too soon', 'thoughts and prayers', 'we'll always have crazy people', but they never put forth any notable proposal other than 'more guns'. So we've armed teachers, we've put SROs in schools, we have armed the populace with 'shall issue' concealed carry permits so that everyone around is armed. People now carry guns to the movies and to go get groceries. Sometimes their kids get ahold of them and kill themselves while we shop (https://www.cbsnews.com/news/8...). Then when a political candidate from the party of all guns all the time, makes remark and says "fact of life", you bumble down a sematic rat hole diagraming sentences and pointing at commas to justify that he wasn't minimizing gun violence... despite the fact that gun violence is now just a fact of life. Then you get in a huff when we say you are minimizing gun violence.
The fanaticism around the 2nd amendment is a recent development. The NRA was a hunting club until the late 70's. Here's an interesting podcast with some good background for those who care: https://radiolab.org/podcast/radiolab-presents-more-perfect-gun-show. Other places have figured this out (Canada for instance), but America is a gun.
That's a good point. We should make child pornography, fentanyl, lead paint, and a bunch of other things legal. Focus on the users, not those making money.
Thanks for illustrating my point about intellectual dishonesty, by offering up an example.
Their entire focus is on the weapon, and not at all on the shooter. The discussion on mass shooting here is intellectually dishonest, just like you.
That's a good point. We should make child pornography, fentanyl, lead paint, and a bunch of other things legal. Focus on the users, not those making money.
@Beaker: Given the amount of trolling and crap you've posted here, you shouldn't expect much polite discourse from others. But people here are trying to have a serious discussion about school shootings. You're just carrying water AGAIN for a failed politician who's trying to shrug off another school shooting.
No they're not. This is dishonest, which is pretty much par for the course with you. The anti-gun types here are screaming in the same way they have always reacted, with each mass shooting. They offer no alternatives but their very own position of banning the offending weapon and restricting legal access to buying firearms. They don't discuss what might happen to the likely incidence of school shootings if such a ban were enacted (Oh noes - there's other guns! Hello 3D printed ghost guns ! Oh noes - Europe - mass stabbings! ) They don't discuss the availability of unregistered weapons (also a considerable problem in Canada - guns smuggled in from America). They don't discuss root causes - such as mental illnesses and societal ostracization of the shooters. Their entire focus is on the weapon, and not at all on the shooter. The discussion on mass shooting here is intellectually dishonest, just like you.
I'm always a little suspicious whenever there is a "provocative" repost from Twitter/X or other social media sites - regardless of whatever side it may represent - but maybe that's just me.
You are correct. That should be the default stance for everyone. Though trying to get many/most to change their reflexive ways may be impossible.
The problem, phokes, isn't the tone of the debates here, it's what you choose to debate, while ignoring other substantive issues and news. Very few convos, so far this cycle, have been substantive and on important topics. The discussion on unrealized gains is one notable exception to what is mostly low-fi noise that passes for political discussion here.
You mean to say that fake narratives happen on social media, that many fall for and repeat here? That's never happened here on RP before!
Thanks. You are correct. A little digging, and yeah, it's totally fake. My bad.
I'm always a little suspicious whenever there is a "provocative" repost from Twitter/X or other social media sites - regardless of whatever side it may represent - but maybe that's just me.
Yes and no. Those police who visited the shooter last year had no tools at their disposal so they walked away thinking "that one's trouble." As I've said before though, it's not up to me to find a solution that works but I'm happy to start with the most glaring one and go from there. It's up to the people who won't consider restrictions on guns to come up with a workable and effective alternative. More and more bulletproof glass is one suggestion. And then the same pro-gun families lament the fact that kids spend their days indoors, not enjoying the freedom and fresh air that they grew up with.
Yep. This is on the gun lobby/2A absolutists, who have consistently said that guns and ammo are not ever part of the negotiation. We heard about mental health, we heard about SROs in schools, we heard about 'culture', But it simply wasn't possible to have guns even be part of the conversation. Okay, here we are years later. Same shit, different day. Sandy Hook got Tim Walz and a few others to introspect and come to their senses. But the rest have remained steadfast. Now they bristle at the suggestion that one of theirs said something to the effect of 'it's a fact of life'. Well it's a fact of life. Life in America today includes gun violence. Many other countries have figured this out, but America is a gun. Most people (a solid majority) have said that some gun regulation is needed, the lobby/power/influence says 'no'. Yet there is no other solution offered. Just live with it until it impacts enough of them directly.
