Or at least it would have to be shown to not be an official act. And since taking classified documents home with you and showing them around to people after your presidential term is over may or may not be an official act, all bets seem to be off.
They ruled in a way that didn't really define what an official act was, so if I'm not mistaken, any act could still be up to SCOTUS to ultimately determine if charges were brought and prosecuted.
This so what I was trying to argue elsewhere: people keep saying it made the POTUS a king, but if I were POTUS and wanted to do something questionable, I know who I would be running it by first.
I did some cyberstalking (someone actually built a whole ass family tree on Ancestry already, which was my source to look up the other info). Just a reminder, please don’t dox or post any publicly identifiable info on here.
The alleged shooter did donate to a liberal group in 2021, age 17, before he was registered to vote. Rumors of this being another person are likely inaccurate, as the donor has the correct name and zip code listed.
The alleged shooter is a registered Republican. Some have theorized he did this as a “stop Trump” sort of thing to vote in PA’s closed primaries. His father is a registered libertarian and his mother is a registered democrat. His sister is a registered libertarian.
I imagine we will have more info on his background and motivation in the coming days and weeks. It’s possible that he could have any kind of political alignment. A lot of young men can get radicalized between 17 and 20.
[T]here exists a solid empirical paper trail demonstrating that lower cognitive abilities (e.g., abstract-reasoning skills and verbal, nonverbal, and general intelligence) predict greater prejudice. We discuss how the effects of lower cognitive ability on prejudice are explained (i.e., mediated) by greater endorsement of right-wing socially conservative attitude. […]
Right-wing ideologies offer well-structured and ordered views about society that preserve traditional societal conventions and norms (e.g., Jost, Glaser, Kruglanski, & Sulloway, 2003). Such ideological belief systems are particularly attractive to individuals who are strongly motivated to avoid uncertainty and ambiguity in preference for simplicity and predictability (Jost et al., 2003; Roets & Van Hiel, 2011). Theoretically, individuals with lower mental abilities should be attracted by right-wing social-cultural ideologies because they minimize complexity and increase perceived control (Heaven, Ciarrochi, & Leeson, 2011; Stankov, 2009). Conversely, individuals with greater cognitive skills are better positioned to understand changing and dynamic societal contexts, which should facilitate open-minded, relatively left-leaning attitudes (Deary et al., 2008a; Heaven et al., 2011; McCourt, Bouchard, Lykken, Tellegen, & Keyes, 1999). Lower cognitive abilities therefore draw people to strategies and ideologies that emphasize what is presently known and considered acceptable to make sense and impose order over their environment. Resistance to social change and the preservation of the status quo regarding societal traditions—key principles underpinning right-wing social-cultural ideologies—should be particularly appealing to those wishing to avoid uncertainty and threat.
Indeed, the empirical literature reveals negative relations between cognitive abilities and right-wing social-cultural attitudes, including right-wing authoritarian (e.g., Keiller, 2010; McCourt et al., 1999), socially conservative (e.g., Stankov, 2009; Van Hiel et al., 2010), and religious attitudes (e.g., Zuckerman, Silberman, & Hall, 2013).
There’s a reason conspiracy theories run rampant on the right. These people are so gullible, and a big part of it has to do with the fact that they are far less educated on average. As a result they tend to just follow news they want to believe in as opposed to challenging their own biases.
No, I’m saying that not all violence is political violence. Things that aren’t even violent are definitely not political violence. The author’s definition of “political violence” appears to include any government action that he’s not happy with. (He reminds me of the “taxes are theft” libertarians.)
Their main example is Gaza and that violence is political. Hamas is a political party with support from Palestinians that Israel is trying to wipe out using violence. In fact most violence is political in that you are trying to get certain changes to the governing apparatus through action.
There’s a mao quote that goes something along the lines of politics is war without violence and war is politics with violence. They’re two sides of the same coin.
This is obvious and, honestly, the arguments against it are so weak and rely on such a niche, deliberate misunderstanding of how... you know, reality works, that it's probably not worth engaging with them. Especially not now. It's still shocking to see it written down, though, at least until one remembers that people can just write whatever they want on social media.
I'll give them this, though: the notion that political violence like this is "unheard of" in the US is absurd. It is shockingly frequent.
news
Oldest
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.