burnerbeforereading1
BurnerBeforeReading
burnerbeforereading1

California was not a “Republican stronghold” 25 years ago. It voted for Clinton twice in the 1990s and had a Democratically-controlled legislature. The 1990s were a time when Republicans could compete in California, up until the point that they went all-in on being anti-Hispanic and tainted the Republican brand in

Well, think of it in another context, what if Trump started tweeting out a daily list of people spreading hate about him by donating money to his opponents? You know, a different city every day, and legally, he’s not responsible if his followers decide to take it upon themselves to harass or even get violent toward

They were following department procedures, so they likely will face zero discipline.

In an ideal world, you could pick a secure password and use it everywhere. Even if your data were breached, it should be essentially impossible for anyone to get your password.

I would trust an IPA from New England about as much as I would trust an avocado from Manhattan.

I do not know about DC, but it seems like about half of the places I go in the Bay Area do not have Bud or Coors or Pabst or any of the other piss-water domestic beers on tap. There is no big loss there, because there are still plenty of places you can go if you want a Bud Light. 

Former Presidents generally do not comment on the policies of current administrations unless specifically invited to by the current President. It’s just a tradition of respect for the office. I’m sure that it is also a tradition that Trump will break as soon as he is out of office. 

It’s a matter of class as well. Traditionally, former Presidents have refrained from actively criticizing the policies of current administrations. Likewise, sitting Presidents have generally refrained from personally attacking former Presidents. Of course, like many things, these are traditions that Obama, Carter,

The Vegas shooter and the pulse nightclub shooter were both married. The San Bernardino shooter actually carried the attack out with the help of his wife, who was shot alongside him. Those were 3 of the worst mass shootings in recent American history.

Neither white nationalism nor white supremacy is classified as a mental illness, as much as some people want to portray all these shooters as mentally deranged. The fact is, a lot of these people are cold, calculating who are acting rationally.

Whether someone is “unstable” is actually irrelevant as to the question of whether a specific act of violence is terrorism. I’m sure that Islamic extremists recruit plenty of mentally unstable terrorists too. They’re still terrorists.

Domestic terrorism is not a specific crime in the US code.

Plus, if you read the teen’s manifesto, he might not be “normal”, but he certainly sounds rational, not someone who is mentally ill and suffering from a delusional state of mind. The scary fact is, violence is often the product of rational calculation, not emotional outbursts or mental illness. And while a lot of

Basically, there are a lot of white nationalists who are teetering on the edge of a cliff, ready to fall over and preemptively start the armed conflict they have long-believed is inevitable. Trump is not responsible for their actions but he is responsible for giving them the little nudge they needed to fall over the

Some of the worst, most recent shootings were arguably terrorism:

Just because you are mentally ill does not mean you don’t know what you are doing. And you’re right that mental illness is not the primary factor in many mass shootings; however, it is the primary factor in quite a few, including some of the worst like Sandy Hooke.

At the same time, there are plenty of countries where people can get their hands on dangerous weapons but rarely go on mass killing sprees or engage in more typical gun crimes. Norway, for instance, had the worst mass shooting in modern history; but unlike the US, it was a huge outlier. Switzerland has even easier

So we agree then that getting a gun license and getting a car license should both be more restrictive due to the danger?

It’s not just conservatives though. During the 1990s, both sides of the aisle were lobbying hard against video game violence.