I know but just look at Trump's reaction, blaming it on mental illness and trying to deflect from the fact that the shooter in El Paso seems to have targeted Mexicans as a consequence of Trump's racist rhetoric.

It was this that I was attempting to anticipate and to point it out before he started his standard diversions. Perhaps I was a little clumsy in my choice of examples but the underlying point is still there.

So long as the NRA have enough politicians in their pockets this problem will never be solved. The NRA, in case you don't know, have received funds from Russia, laundered via a devious route. Now I wonder why they might do that?

For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally.

The shooter in Ohio, who shot up a nightclub killing currently nine and injuring plenty was a far left antifa supporter with personal pronouns on their twitter....he had expressed support for Elizabeth Warren and the AOC 'squad'.

Does this mean we have to look at the Democratic party and its rhetoric to explain this person's actions?

So transparent.

Funny how the left are so selective with which shooters they want to shout about.

We had the shooting of that republican politician last year and a tranny shooter a few months back. The heavily armed far left supporter who tried to bomb the border police.

Strange how quickly they faded from the news and how little newspace was devoted to their motivations or which politicians were to blame for their actions.

Edited by Stirlingsays (05 Aug 2019 10.34am)

'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)

The difference between the El Paso and Ohio shooters is obvious, or at least it ought to be.

That they both might have had strong political, and opposing views, is irrelevant.

One tweeted immediately before he carried out his attack why he was committing his crime and made it plain it was because of his racist views.

The other did not.

The right are just assuming he might have done so and therefore claiming equivalence.

It's another attempted diversion and nothing more.

For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally.

The shooters who are murdering due to replacement and no doubt other reasons specific to them are definitely a reality.

However, the left cannot make the absurdly one eyed claim that rhetoric from Trump plays a factor in mass shootings while rhetoric from their politicians doesn't.

Those who live in fantasy land and talk about 'challenges' and about how people are just going to have to learn to 'share' while they live at the tough end....all while they play bowls in Cornwall...well people like that are really just parodies and have nothing realistic to say.

The politics of idealists have created the social incohesion that now pervades society and now we will have to live with increasingly frequent horrors.

All given to us by those too stupid to recognise that the road to hell is paved with good intentions.

'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)

Of course not. It is a completely ridiculous and politically motivated claim.
You could go on a killing spree because of something you saw on the History Channel if you were irrational and armed with an assault rifle.

There is though an enormous difference. Trump is the President. When the President makes remarks intended to motivate his "base", many of whom display racist attitudes, he has a real impact. It is the antipathy of responsible leadership.

I have never heard any of the Democratic candidates for 2020 ever making racist comments or offering any sympathy to organisations like Antifa. If they did I suspect their candidacy wouldn't last long.

A POTUS is not the President of one section of the USA. He is the President for all.

Comparing it to people getting motivated by things like seeing something on the history channel is very disingenuous. The history channel does not enjoy the same level of influence as the POTUS.

For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally.