politics
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
view the rest of the comments
ITT: Look at the parents, this kid was just rebelling!
Press X to doubt
Or… He was a conservative that saw MAGA as the existential crisis that it is. He decided that he had nothing left to lose. He went for it.
Let’s be real here. The only shame was that he missed.
I think he died for a cause. But that could just be my bias showing.
I just want to go back in history and ask at what point people would've considered it appropriate to use political violence against someone like Hitler, or was it never okay? Like was it post first coup? Post second coup? After invading Poland? Did they need to wait for gas chambers? I'm curious when public sentiment shifted.
Well people tried to kill Hitler loads of times. 42 times according to Wikipedia. First was in 1932, before he became dictator.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assassination_attempts_on_Adolf_Hitler?wprov=sfla1
There are some absolutely cunning and insane stories in here. Fascinating.
Max Planck's son Erwin was also involved in a plot. He was executed for his part despite pleas from his father.
Bitchass conservatives are always pushing for political violence. I'm tired of the left always trying to by the better man.
For much of the populace, sentiment only began to shift when life got harder for them personally. For some, that was when their children were killed in the war, for others it was when food shortages started to hurt, and still others would fully support the reich until it inevitably turned against them. Most personal impact that people felt was brushed off as "patriotic sacrifice" for the greater good. It was a bunch of small things that just piled up over time. Different people had different breaking points. But some people went through the whole war remaining fully supportive of the government.
You have to remember that propaganda was also much more effective then, when the government could fully control all media. Many Nazi supporters at the time had no idea what Hitler was really like or what was going on at concentration camps. The guards for those camps and other SS soldiers were chosen because they met certain loyalty criteria and would not go against orders. But everyone else was either oblivious to the cruelty, fearful of what would happen to their families if they went against the government, or just blissfully unaware and brainwashed by propaganda.
With the Internet today, it should be harder for people to fall for propaganda. The Internet really changes things now. You can see the disinformation influence everywhere but it's much harder to silence all the dissenters now. There will always be people who refuse to seek answers or listen to opposing viewpoints and there's not much to be done about that except teach open mindedness to children when they're young. It's why the fascists try to hard to simultaneously control and hamstring the education system. Unfortunately, they've been at it so long that there's now a large portion of the population that grew up with poor education and are now easily influenced by the media sources that the fascists control. The propaganda today must focus more on convincing people that there is an existential threat in the form of a group, person, or ideology that only they can stop. They just need to convince enough people that doing evil things for "good" reasons is justified. They're beginning to reach critical mass of supporters to where they can brazenly try to seize control of the government now, laws be damned. You see them pushing on those legal boundaries much more frequently these days. If they succeed, things will get worse for everyone (including their supporters) when they decide to fully drop their facades and begin doing evil things without any justification besides "because I felt like it". Leopards will always eat faces, but for some reason people never learn that lesson.
Thanks for the response.
I think the internet is now a double-edged sword, and I can speak to this coming from a former Republican household in the 2000s.
Back then, pre-Facebook (and to at least the very early stages when it was a College-oriented platform), the internet was far less segregated into marketing platforms. You really would be exposed to anything and everything and that, combined with my parents' upbringing in the 60s really had an impact on our family's perception of events, including the Iraq War.
Nowadays, marketing algorithms are fine-tuned to preach to the choir and simply create massive echo-chambers. You can see this if you just create a new YouTube account and see the default content that shows up, like Joe Rogan... Just watch let alone like one of his videos, and next you'll have Jordan Peterson clips filling your feed and as this happens any contrarian viewpoint gets marginalized.
If we had the internet of today back then, I'm not sure my family would break our rural right-wing religious pro-life bubble. It is VERY hard today unless you're already well-versed in critical-thinking, have a major dose of introspection and humility, and are internet-savvy.
That is a fantastic question. Pretty much everyone agrees that Hitler should have killed in the cradle given hindsight.
When is it moral to kill the motherfucker without having a crystal ball?
Earlier than most people will openly condone given the nature of their State and society.
However, what if that creates a big dumb Hitler martyr that a more effective fascist can wave as a bloody flag and things get worse due to better managed evil?
Yeah I agree, which is why I'm actually in the camp that I'm glad the_dumbass lived. If we can't defeat this buffoon, then shit, we couldn't defeat anyone.
Moreover I'd rather see him rot in prison. In order to set this country straight again, he has to be brought down by the Justice system.
Depends on the country
In Germany:
Communists and Anarchists: Around 1920, when the SA was founded
Social democrats: Depends on the „type“ of social democrat. The Reichsbanner Schwarz-Rot-Gold, the social democratic militia, expected their leaders to start a coup in 1933
Conservatives: 1939, when the war started (at least those, that still were conservatives and didn‘t join the Nazis)
Monarchists: 1942, when it became visible, that Hitler couldn‘t win the war (at least those, that still were monarchists and didn‘t join the Nazis)
Just as a little addendum here is a list of assassination attempts on hitler
People famously tried to kill Hitler many times. Dude was like a cockroach and kept getting away.
Oh sometime between liberating the first camp and he shot himself too soon probably.
I say Wannsee at the latest. WWI would’ve been fair.
I feel that everyone should resist the urge to act like psychics or psychologists right now. We know far too little at this point to speculate on this kids state of mind before or during the shooting.
As we learn more, perhaps that will change, but - and this is the terrible truth - we may never know. and we’re ALL going to have to learn to process and move on from this either way.
Seriously. It might not have been political at all.
When John Hinckley Jr took a shot at Reagan, he was trying to impress Jodie Foster......
https://youtu.be/ogp4o1d4p3E?si=yzTdwdadV7Qcdjy9
There is no need to bring psychology here at all.
The kid was, and has been, the only and true patriotic hero of the entire country. He should be applauded, not tiptoed around to call him insane or crazy, otherwise, you're pretty much calling every single american ancestor that died for 4th of July America's independence a mentally ill bastard too, but they're not different at all.
People should stop acting like: If one single person did it, it's mental illness. If a mob or big group of people did it, it's terrorism, unless they win...
how did you read me saying, "I feel that everyone should resist the urge to act like ... psychologists," and think i was in disagreement?
i most certainly did nothing of the sort
my point is that we know so very little factual information about this kid that nobody can do more than to speculate or guess as to his actual motivations, so we shouldn't until we learn sufficient facts to draw a reasonable, logical conclusion.
Or he was a conservative and thought that Trump wasn't racist enough.
Or seen the Epstein stuff, and felt incredibly betrayed.
Former rightist here, I not only got my face eaten by the Fidesz leopards (gutted health-care, gutted job security, gutted disability benefits that are now also harder to get, etc), and I remember the day when I've read that Fidesz lowered the age of consent to 12 in case both parties are under 18. I thought a "conservative" party would do the opposite, and raise it to 18 with some exceptions. I remember being so angry I couldn't sleep that night at all, seen the sun rising, and my luck was that I didn't have school on that day. And after the whole cHiLd prOteCTion fiasco, one of their politician even married an 18 year old he groomed since she was 14. Many claim the low age of consent of my country is only for close-in-age relationships, but it doesn't stop much greater age differences, which are dangerously popular, because "boys at my age are stupid and don't have cars" as some of those teen girls would say, others are being groomed with "but age differences are natural" if they were skeptical and didn't want to run into such a relationship.
I took the whole "child protection" thing seriously. I knew victims. Many of them were my age. However when I had to realize some was just using it as an issue to get me to vote for them, while they themselves were doing it, often way more publicly than how Trump did it.
Damn...it sucks that I can't call that idea far fetched lol
A few things, like the shirt he was wearing, makes me wonder if it was Trump's stance on gun control that triggered this.
According to reports from classmates he failed to make the school rifle team because he was a poor shot - but also the instructor noted that he made "crass jokes" and FWIW got a poor impression of Crooks. I mention that tangentially it could apply to racism or who knows what or who he made the crass jokes about while shooting. Was he joking about shooting minorities or something?