He’ll need Lindsay Graham’s assistance for that. I’m sure he’ll help trigger some repressed memories.
Yes, it could have been. But the guy from high school who everyone bought their date-rape drugs from felt the need to feel bigger and tougher than these people. He was in the national guard, you know.
Has enough time passed for it to be safe to say that Charlie Kirk's shooter was most likely radicalized by... Charlie Kirk? Like there was no group of anarchists/communists/leftists/whatever that got to the shooter and filled his head with crazy ideas. He just watched a bunch of Charlie Kirk and thought to himself "wow, this guy sucks so much I have to shoot him." Sometimes people simply reach conclusions on their own based on their own observations.
There is speculation in some online circles that say there was more to it than that. -Trump/ Hegseth actually only wanted to meet with certain generals for their nefarious plans, but they called in all of them to make it seem less suspicious. -The hotel rooms of suspected disloyal generals were bugged.
I assume you're saying this at this time because of the apparent absence of any connection to extremist groups, be they left or right? Yes, someone can just be a homegrown, leftwing extremist that fucks his trans roommate and shoots a man for speaking, without influence from any leftist group. It is a free country, after all.
We really haven't seen any evidence that he was a leftwing extremist either. I haven't seen anything reported where he advocated for revolution, or overthrow of the system, or radical political change. His extremism seemed pretty confined to hating this one particular fucker.
Maybe, I quit reading about the whole thing unless I get hooked by a good headline, which is happening less and less. Political assassination is certainly not a normal place that one begins their extremism, I agree. I have trouble not considering him a extremist, just can't do it.
Government shutdown in a nutshell: 1) Democrats pass ACA subsidies during COVID to help with costs during COVID. 2) Democrats set those subsidies expire at YE 2025 so the Infrastructure Bill doesn't sting as much. 3) Democrats figure they could just turn around and extend them after the bills passage. 4) Republicans don't extend them. 5) Democrats "The sky is falling!" The Democrats shot themselves in the foot. Again. At what point do they get rid of their leadership? How bad does it need to get? Chuck Schumer is just a continuing embarrassment.
The shutdown is really about the fact that the Trump Administration is completely out of control, and Democrats can't sign onto a bill that will provide funding that Trump will simply take and use for whatever evil and illegal purpose he likes, in blatant defiance of Article I. But you try explaining that to the median voter, so Dems went with what works: Republicans are shit on healthcare, and your premiums are about to jump.
Yes. Each time this melodramatic garbage happens, it's a failure of governance by all involved, in addition to the explicit reason. I also blame Republicans for not giving Americans better healthcare choices leading to subsidies for a shit program like the ACA in the first place. How's that?
They need to read the fucking room. They were polling lower in popularity than the Republicans recently and it's not because they're a bounty of good ideas that the public just doesn't get.
I don’t know, maybe I’m crazy, but I’ll take NO ideas over an endless series of incredibly horrible ones.
I mean, they kinda are. A bounty of popular ideas at least. When you poll issue-by-issue, the Dem position comes out ahead like 60-40 or even 70-30 on most issues. I can't recall the last time a Democrat lost a race because of policy.