Why I left the Democratic Party

Of course they did. The question is what made them want to vote that way.

No. Anyone with half a brain knew she was going to claw her way to the nominati0n by any means necessary. It was like watching a disastrous accident in slow motion. It was all there to see.

The most influential person on my politics for about three years has been a man with membership here, calling himself PDiddie. His blog laid out good reasons to quit being a Democratic foil. Anybody caring to know can research his blog. I posted it on a2k a time or two, but can't recall which thread.

Then you apparently didn't see this:





Now I have JTT on Ignore so I don't know what he's written,(regardless, he can hardly be considered a "right-winger") but the only person that has criticized the FBI, relative to the shooting, is Lash and so the comment of hers that you've dismissed is entirely supportable.

Of course, ehbeth contributed the following but I doubt her comment that right-wingers have already started to criticize the FBI to divert attention from their own culpability was a confession.



It's a favorite rhetorical technique of yours to respond to claims with something along the lines of "I've not seen that."

Of course, the fact that you haven't seen something doesn't mean it hasn't happened and with frequency. I don't know if you are a fan of Marvel comics, but I'm quite sure "hightor" is not the secret identity of The Watcher

As specious as this technique is in general, it's rather laughable when, as usual, you employ it to dismiss someone's assertion and the evidence, of which you claim to be blind, is a response to one of your own posts.

BTW, exactly how are right-wingers at all culpable for this tragedy (let alone more culpable than the FBI)?

I anticipate that your response will resemble maporche's nonsense about their opposition to "common sense" gun control regulations proposed by the Democrats. First off this is another specious argument which isn't worth consideration unless you are willing to agree that the Democrats failure to force such measures through Congress, when they had the opportunity, makes them culpable as well. Clearly, you are not.

Secondly, it's baloney. It's too soon to draw conclusions, either way, about this particular incident, but we know that the Dem favored regulations would not have prevented similar prior shootings. Marco Rubio made this argument in 2015 and the Washington Post "fact-checkers" jumped on it; certain that they could prove it to be false. Instead, they ended up awarding Rubio a rare Geppeto Checkmark which means that regardless of how much they wanted to (and you know they did) they couldn't cite inaccuracies. In anticipation of an "I didn't see that." response, I am providing a link:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2015/12/10/marco-rubios-claim-that-no-recent-mass-shootings-would-have-been-prevented-by-gun-laws/?utm_term=.b851d4dbeec1

If you can contest his assertion based on similar incidents since 2015, I'm all ears.

Having to show a valid ID before voting in order to prevent Democrats from cheating in elections is hardly a violation of anyone's rights.

Whether abortion is murder or not is a matter of opinion. Reproductive rights do not extend to allowing murder, so if it is murder it is no violation to prohibit it.

Note that I am not taking a pro-life position here. I am merely pointing out that the pro-life position is just as reasonable as the pro-choice position.

Oops...didn't see this before responding to hightor. (Obviously, we concur )

The only one I blame for this heinous act is the murderer; not the GOP, the NRA, Hollywood, video game makers, neglectful parents, criticism of religion, “The System,” Democrats or the FBI.

Yes, it appears that the FBI didn’t conduct the sort of investigation that in hindsight we all would love to have seen, but they receive hundreds, if not thousands, of tips on possible threats each day and simply do not have the resources to thoroughly investigate every one of them as they would an actually committed crime.

It doesn’t say anything good about our society, but the murder’s online comment about becoming a professional school shooter is one of the millions of disturbing remarks posted on social media every year, and, in comparison to many, was quite tame. See if you can find the lovely things posted by animals lovers in regards to what they wanted to do to the dentist from Ohio who shot and killed Clarence the Lion. Many are disturbingly violent and suggest sick minds. I feel sure some were reported to the authorities and I am equally certain that all of them were not thoroughly investigated

Which leads us to the question of what we think the FBI could have or should have done that they didn’t? Well, they probably could have identified this guy, but then what? They couldn’t arrest him for something he wrote on social media, and does anyone think that as a solution to this problem, the police should have the authority to arrest and imprison people for what they say or write?

I know quite a few progressives think that certain people should not be allowed to write or say certain things (and that in some cases violence is an acceptable means of prevention), but this has always been limited to what they consider to be hate speech with a political basis, and I don’t remember reading any stories about the Antifa gathering outside of the house of a miscreant who has posted comments about a desire or even intention to commit violence. Hell, if they did, they would find themselves amassed outside of their own homes! No one on the left wanted Kathy Griffin arrested nor any of the other progressive knuckleheads who posted comments and images that could easily be considered to involve, if not encouragement of violence toward Trump a desire to see such a thing happen. Should those clowns have been arrested?

Each time an event like this occurs we are treated to moralizing, finger-pointing, and nauseating displays of sanctimony from the left. Each time we are bombarded by the analysis of TV psychologists telling us that in situations this terrible, it is natural for people to demand something be done, and right away! Whatever it takes! The frequency of these events is sickening but it should have shaken people who hold jobs of responsibility, whether in government or the media, loose from the knee-jerk natural response, by now. I believe the response to these incidents by Democrats and the liberal media is cynical politicization, but even if that is too harsh, it is certainly childish. There is no easy fix and if there was, it wouldn’t necessarily be worth all the consequences it brought with it. Stamping our feet and insisting something be done will not go very far in solving the problem.

It doesn’t matter whether you approach the problem from a standpoint of guns or mental health, the quick fix proposals all involve the erosion of individual rights, and while I am personally more afraid of what this means in terms of people with mental health issues than its impact on 2nd Amendment rights, in both cases we are talking about depriving people of their rights on the grounds that by doing so, the greater good is served. In and of itself the whole Greater Good argument is thorny, but before we even consider it, it would be helpful if the solutions people are proposing could be shown to have at least a decent chance of succeeding. So far, none have.

I've been horrified by comments made by allegedly serious and responsible people that all basically amount to "I'm sorry! The FBI should have found this guy and locked him up! We're talking about dead kids here! Have you heard the kids at that school who survived? They are wondering how this could have happened and why the adults haven't done anything to prevent these incidents. They want us to do something now and we owe it to them to do just that!"

I have mixed emotions about how this fits perfectly within the pattern of our society's behavior in response to these shootings.

It's sad and depressing that they are repeated.

It's frustrating amd infuriatinhg that we can't seem to get past the partisan politics on both sides (although I think anyone who is honest has to admit that the politicization coming from the left is far more intense than anything coming from the right) and attempt to get to the root causes of what we are faced with, lay out a list of solutions with a real chance of working, calculate the risk and reward component of any and all proposed solutions and come to an agreement on how to proceed so that a) we can eliminate or greatly reduce the incidents, or b) avoid repeating ad nauseum rhetorical wars filled with ugly accusations that do nothing but further the aspirations of politicians and widen the division in our nation.

It's paradoxically reassuring that despite all the outrage, sanctimony and wild proposals for stripping people of their rights, the politicians all punt and the media moves on to a new story.

A further word on politicization. I don't mean to suggest that the Right is not capable of such low behavior and hasn't been guilty of it in the past. In the case of this shooting, I have heard pundits and politicians on the right use it as a platform to fire salvos in the Culture War; going off on video games, movies and secularism. Somehow they miss the irony of any argument made in favor of infringing on the right to free speech in defense of the right to bear arms. We can't outlaw high volume ammo magazines, but we can outlaw violent video games and pop music with violent lyrics...However, I think it is undeniable that it is the Left that is trying to make the most political hay out of this issue and this event.

I have heard conservatives question and criticize the FBI for "fumbling" the investigation, but no more than liberals. Again, it is "natural" to look for a scapegoat and despite what criticism is leveled against law enforcement, we tend to expect perfection from them, but if this criticism is itself politicized, I didn't see any examples in 4 hour straight hours of watching Fox last night. Considering my recent jab at hightor, I will very quickly add that it doesn't mean it hasn't happened, just like the fact that I haven't seen liberals suddenly being sympathetic towards the FBI because they wish to counter the perceived right-wing campaign to discredit them hasn't happened. In fact, I'm sure there are examples of both behaviors, but criticism of the FBI, in this case, is understandable without requiring a political perspective.

Given what we know, it can easily be said they blew it, and unfortunately, it seems like every time there is a shooting we learn that some government agency had the shooter on their radar, but rather than this evidencing incompetence, it demonstrates a) The breadth of our law enforcement/intelligence agency surveillance net (reassuring and alarming at the same time) and even more so, b) The complexity of the problem whether it involves number of threats vs resources or the legal limitations of the authorities.

I'm sure no one is more eaten up by the failure of the FBI to prevent this than the agents assigned to conduct the initial investigation. It's certainly the case though that we are not made aware of all the times the authorities have prevented these incidents (sometimes there's no way of knowing for sure and sometimes they can't reveal facts due to the risk of compromising methods & procedure or blowing an undercover operation), and so what sticks in our minds are the times they seem to have failed.

The current negative focus by the right on the FBI and our intelligence agencies is not, in the main, directed at the rank & file, despite what opponents on the left love to argue. I was defending these people when Frank Church was maligning them as renegade torturers and assassins, and Obama and Holder were making it known they were considering prosecuting agents who had engaged in extreme interrogation methods. My criticism and the majority of the criticism coming from the right is of the leadership of these agencies, political appointees and "career" members in executive positions who, for reasons of job security, advancement or plain old partisan ideology, allowed political considerations to corrupt their integrity. We all know J. Edgar Hoover wasn't a White Hat kind of guy so the notion that his successors must be by virtue of their positions alone is absurd. It's become something of a cliche, but I do believe that 90 something percent of the rank & file in all of these agencies are honest, hard-working patriots doing their best to serve their nation. To the extent that anyone seeks to taint them with the sins of their leadership I would strenuously object.

I would like to mention that the thumbs down feature has no bearing on my mental health and well being. It just demonstrates their childish inability to face facts.

Wait a second. I was responding to Lash's "sheeple" comment and didn't realize that she was only referring to the limited context of this thread on this message board. And since I've been active on A2K I've seen Lash tagged, rightly or wrongly, as a Trump supporter and a closet rightist, way before this story ever came on the scene. So in this case there weren't any "if's" involved. The member would be seen as a rightist irrespective of her opinion of the FBI. But if I see this happening in the MSM I'll be sure to draw attention to it. I see Rick Scott's calling for Wray's resignation. That's where the action is and that's what I'm talking about.

I can't help that. I might as well divulge my ignorance right off and be corrected. Misunderstandings can be cleared up that way.

As far as your larger question, as to how right-wingers tie into the picture, there's not a simple cause-and-effect. As far as the politics go, it has to do with money, the NRA, and the stoking of resentment and fear. But that's superficial — the core of the problem is deeply rooted in our culture. It's the way our psychopathology runs. It's another "peculiar institution". I'm not under any illusions that Democratic policies will eliminate gun violence. But I don't think there's any societal advantage to making firearms easily and widely available to the maximum number of customers.

For me, I chose the only person I could respect based on her political positions and lack of heinous previous behavior.

How about you?

And once she stepped over the bodies, she’d be invincible, ruthless, and the warring murderess she promised to be.

Had he done this in Iraq or Afghanistan, Vietnam or Indonesia, Korea or Cuba, he would have gotten USA medals.

When people politely make an argument and it gets thumbed down, I thumb it back up if I see it, even if I completely disagree with the argument. Unless that person has been a total creep towards me -- then I don't bother.

You're one of the ones who I thumb back up if I see that you've been thumbed down after making a polite argument. There are actually a lot of liberal arguments on a2k that I first thumb back up and then post a detailed rebuttal to.

I agree that the "thumbs-down people" are negatively reacting to facts that they don't like. You should see the reaction to the facts that I post.

There is. Having our civil rights protected makes our society much better than what exists in other countries.

I didn't feel I had that option, especially after the Nader experience in '00, so I chose the party which would be most likely, and most able, to advance some semblance of what could be labeled my "interests" and protect some pretense of my perceived "gains", especially concerning the environment, reproductive rights, labor relations, judicial appointments, voting rights and electoral reform, consumer protection, healthcare, and a number of other issues where the GOP takes positions which are 180º to my own. I've never had particularly high expectations for the political process and usually cast my vote for the candidate whose mouth seems to foam the least.

I was torn on who to vote for. I'm still really pissed off at the Democrats over the 2008 presidential primary in Michigan (you would not believe the number of Republicans that I've voted for over the years solely because of that). But I liked Hillary a lot on foreign policy. But Hillary was planning a renewed assault on the Second Amendment. But I was confident that we could defeat such an effort and do real damage to her presidency in the process (much like we did to Obama's second term) if she dared.

I was wavering and undecided who to vote for even on the morning of election day. Then a liberal friend of mine sneered and said that I didn't need to worry because the Democrats were only going to ban assault weapons.

I believe that they were somehow trying to convince me to vote for Hillary. But they actually removed all doubt that my vote needed to go to Trump.

So I voted for Trump.

No regrets. It's nice to have pro-civil-rights people in charge of the country.

Almost as convoluted as your explanation for dismissing Lash's assertion out of hand. You're rarely this obtuse.

Let me see if I have this straight.

You think the right is culpable for the deaths of the Florida school children, but there's no cause and effect argument you can make to support this belief.

The presence of "money" the NRA and the stoking of fear and resentment though informs your intuition sufficiently to warrant an accusation that people who hold a conservative viewpoint on the 2nd Amendment, have blood on their hands. However, these factors are only "superficial because the true cause of these horrendous acts is our pathological culture.


I would like to point out here that the only factor you cited that is largely unique to the right and, by extension, the GOP is the NRA. Democrats spend as much money or more as their opponents on elections. That there is a significant difference between the sources of this money is a favorite canard of liberals, but in reality, there is no meaningful distinction. As far as stoking fear and resentment, what do you call the claims of Democrats that Republicans are trying to kill people with their policies, are waging war on women, the poor and every other “minority” interest group in America, literally want to control women’s reproductive systems, consider blacks and Hispanics inferior to whites, and, oh yeah, care more about their guns than their children?

Do you frequently make truly damning accusations about people, despite the fact that you cannot draw a clear line from them to the tragedy for which you blame them; which are based upon an intuitive conclusion which you admit centers on three factors that are “superficial” (and only one of which, whether or not you admit it, can be considered uniquely “owned” by them) and which, when pressed, you discard and offer up an entirely different causation?

I don’t know hightor, do you really think that blaming a group for the deaths of 17 people ( mostly children) is so minor a thing that you feel no regret or shame for basing it on such fatuous reasoning?

I’m a little surprised because you usually avoid such extreme positions but this is precisely the sort of thing that has raised the toxicity level of our political discourse to lethality and is tearing the Union apart. Do you image that conservatives are so cold-hearted and devoid of empathy that they would not, quite reasonably, find being accused of having the blood of innocents on their hands to be deeply insulting? Talk about “fighting words” Do today’s liberals have any concept of what this term means other than voicing opinions like marriage should be between a man and a woman, men who simply feel like women should not be permitted to use the same public bathrooms as young girls who are only biologically female, all lives matter, men on campuses accused of sexual misconduct should not be deprived of due process, or hunting and killing animals is good fun?

Lash has admitted to voting for Dubya twice. Since then she claims to have had some sort of Damascene conversion to progressive politics. I'm not saying that's impossible, but it tends to happen when people are very young, teens and early twenties, not when they're middle aged.

Even though Trump is in power most of her efforts are focussed on attacking Mrs Clinton and Obama, even going so far as blaming Obama for the recent atrocity in Florida.

If she's not a closet rightist she's certainly behaving like one.

I don't know why this is so incomprehensible to you. I thought I was careful not to make blanket indictments of the entire conservative population. I don't subscribe to the notion of collective guilt here. I said it's not a simple case of cause and effect. It's not as if I could go up to every right-leaning person and accuse them of personal responsibility for the acts of violence committed by mass shooters. I'm saying that you find more celebration of gun culture, militant nationalism, and ethnic intolerance on what we label the "right" of the "political spectrum". But the glorification of ultra-individualism and the technology of death runs deeper in the culture. Kids are exposed to depictions of violence at an early age and movies made for the teenage male market are full of graphic violence and explosions, often grounded to a tale with a nationalistic flourish. I don't blame the right for that, I blame Hollywood's hunger for profits and the lingering effects of our frontier mythology. It's a national pathology, not exclusively a rightist one. But it does appear to energize the Alex Jones lunatic fringe and it is often heralded by advertisers who sponsor populist talk radio.