I will act through engagement.

When you use escalatory language you just just make the Nazis justify their actions by the response they receive.

In another tense moment in American history, the Civil rights movement of the 1960s, MLK was successful due to not being militant. Peaceful action and the strong overreaction of those against civil rights elicited sympathy in those not involved.

The fuck the high road mentality is what likely motivated the shooter and got us into this mess.

There is no reason to escalate what is already a tense political situation.

It is possible the shooter was outside the perimeter. Based on the videos I have seen on CBS, and here: https://www.survivethenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/07/1720916992_Potential-Trump-Shooter-Reportedly-Found-Dead-on-Shed-Roof-VIDEO-1024x576.jpg

The shooter appeared to be on a roof far away from the stands.

Edit: Confirmed that the shooter was outside the perimeter setup by secret service https://www.cbsnews.com/news/possible-shots-fired-at-trump-rally-in-butler-pennsylvania/

Let’s please try to keep the comments constructive.

Well he was the first senator, in the history of the US, to vote for impeachment of a sitting President in the same party.

https://www.vox.com/2020/2/5/21125118/mitt-romney-impeachment-vote-history

Other than that, I am not well versed on his history enough to make comment.

One thing I think people keep missing is that the entire military still is operating with no detriment. They still have people filling positions and acting with the authorities the position holds.

This inconvenience doesn’t impact day to day operations.

Senators should have this ability to hold things up. If we make the statement they can’t then we open ourselves up for ridicule when the situation is reversed.

Certainly true.

Right now we have a military that serves the interests of the industrial complex and not the other way around.

In WWII it wasn’t that way. The government did not have companies that it would be seduced into paying more than a fair value for military equipment

Well we are also not other countries. We have different culture, socio economic makeup, different population distribution, and different history. Something that works in another country isn’t guaranteed to work here.

I think a key reason why nothing will ever change is because moderates offer “hey we can do mental health checks, bans on ownership for people convicted of violent crimes, and mandatory wait times” to meet in the middle and compromise but both sides don’t want to do that.

Just a symptom of how polarized the nation is. Until we fix that, nothing will ever change.

Well that is just one individual out of millions. Just because you don’t see a need doesn’t mean others don’t. Plus us as individuals can’t determine what other large groups can and cannot have. We don’t have the same life experiences.

Someone may be the victim of a sexual assault and when living in a rural area having something to defend themselves gives them some peace of mind.

Imagine living in a small neighborhood where everyone knows everyone and you don’t get along with a corrupt police force. When you are in danger from someone during a home invasion or if you are hiking in the wilderness, you may not trust the cops to act in your best interest

Interesting article. I don’t think the linguistic argument used in the OPED is going to sway anyone to support gun control.

I think a lot of the efforts to implement gun control ignore the nature of the US. The country is large and in some areas people can not rely on quick police response or if the police can respond quickly, they can’t be trusted to act in good faith.

We certainly need some gun control to prevent those who are mentally ill or previously convicted of violent crimes from owning guns. Even processes for these, if put in place, must be appealable to ensure universal fair treatment. Additionally mandatory wait times would be great as well.

I think bans of X gun because it’s scary are non sensical because those bans are not going to win over any gun rights advocates to create a national consensus.

The large majority of gun owners never commit a violent crime and should not be told to give them up because of the actions of a few.

Are globalists and rich people only Jewish though? Not at all.

I think people are really stretching to call it anti-semitic.

I don’t like how the song addresses people with welfare but I definitely wouldn’t call it racist or anti -semitic. However that’s just my own opinion and people can form whatever conclusions they want.

The KKK is a violent extremist organization. How is interacting with that any less risky than the current political climate?

If people just give up on dialog there is 0% of change but if we don’t give up and there is even a 5% chance of humanizing with someone to change their hurtful view, that is many thousands of times better than no chance.

Things will never improve if we give up.

When I’m talking about perspectives of who is operating in good faith, I’m referring to the general American populace and not politicians. That was based on the comment I was replying to. Politicians as a whole, and I think the majority of people can agree, not that trustworthy.

To the example you provided, I think McConnell was operating based on what congressional rules of procedures allow. Should he have let it go to a vote? Yes. However, he was acting in the interest of the people who elected him. He used the means available to him to achieve the outcome his electorate wanted. It wasn’t fair that he didn’t allow the vote but unfortunately the system isn’t fair.

Americans need to get more involved in elections. A max of roughly 40% participation in non presidential years and 60% in presidential election years is abhorrent and we need more involvement to get politicians who have been in office for 15 plus years out of office.

For a long time I was against what this senator is doing since I was ignorant of what his proposed end was.

His position to get DOD policy codified in law because the Hyde Amendment exists, makes sense.

However, I want to be clear that the ultimate outcome should be the status quo remaining. DoD personnel should still get reimbursed for travel regarding abortions.

It is embarrassing that it takes several months to get this resolved.

I’m not saying it’s easy. From the people I have interacted with that are in the vocal minority group, often have no interaction with the groups they are vehemently against. If those people are given the opportunity to interact with someone that is trans or a group they are dehumanizing, they will come to relate to them and that will change their views. When people interact with people they will humanize them and realize that first and foremost we are all human beings.

A good case study of this is Darryl Davis, a black man, who ended up befriending several members of the KKK. Those people he interacted with ended up abandoning the Klan and that made an impact on racism.

If people demonstrated more of that compassion, the world would be a better place than it currently is.

What’s the reason behind thinking half of them are acting in bad faith? Is that because you disagree with them?

The thought of “there is no reasoning with them” is why each group of the electorate has become more and more polarized. Things have been getting worse because all groups only want to talk to people that agree with their own viewpoint.

We all can just do a better job of talking with fellow Americans about these things respectfully, admit positions we can compromise on and educate to convince on positions we are less likely to compromise on.

To be fair, I don’t quite understand the reasoning on why more judges should be added.

If we have 19 judges and 10 are conservative then we are in the same situation as now.

If we have 19 judges and 10 are liberal, we are in the opposite situation but the other side is making the argument “there should be more judges”

In a representative democracy there will be times that a certain side doesn’t get what they want but that is not a reason to rewrite the rules to improve the chances of a particular view being more represented. The spirit of rule changing is how we got things like gerrymandering.

While I know that people don’t like this opinion but just because people don’t like the conservative or liberal judges doesn’t mean those judges have any less of a claim on the position they hold. The courts views on issues ebbs and flows over decades.

If citizens take issue with the current justices on the court, they need to hold the incumbent politicians accountable that approved the justices to be there.

What do you mean by that?

That’s true. Moving past the emotional attempt to rile up the community by stating “throw it into the fire”, it isn’t clearly defined what a business can refuse business for.

If someone at a restaurant acts like a complete jerk and the business rejects providing service, is the business wrong for punishing the customer for expressing their freedom of speech? As long as that customer is not trying to incite violence, as it stands, there is no clarity on which party would be in the right.