'Donated $25': Trump WH correspondents' dinner shooter Cole Tomas Allen is a Kamala Harris supporter! Here's what we know

ThatRobGuy said:

The attempted shooter's manifesto didn't really touch on some of the things that you're mentioning.

The manifesto stated:
“I am no longer willing to permit a pedophile, rapist, and traitor to coat my hands with his crimes,”

Click to expand...

Well, good grief...I'd be here all night if I listed everything about Trump with which people found fault. And made a lot of them angry. As I said "I could keep going but I can't be bothered...' So I didn't mention Epstein, Trump being found in a court of law to have sexually assaulted a women and has been found guilty of criminal activity as well.

Was you listing those accusations meant as an argument for something else? Because it sure looks like it's simply adding to what I already said. And like I said, rather than say that all the social media chatter is the reason why people think that they need to do something, how about actually concentrating on what Trump has done as a matter for concern. As the reason why some idiots take matters into their own hands.

Trying to blame 'the left' for whipping up this anger by complaining about what he has, and is doing is completely and utterly missing the point. Which is that he is the bloody problem! Which doesn't excuse anyone wanting to take him out. But does explain it.

So what are we all to say when he assaults a woman? Nothing?
What should our reaction be when he commits fraud? Nothing again?
What about when he mocks Christians with schoolyard AI images and insults the Pope? Stay quiet?
What about when he gets his DOJ to indict someone for taking photos of sea shells? Not call him out for his monstrous pettiness?
What do we do when he promises no more wars and then attacks another country when he promised us that his first incursion had solved the problem? Stay schtum?
What should our reaction be when he promises prices would start dropping from Day One and they are rising month by month? Nothing at all?
How should we react when the government is giving multi million dollar contracts to companies that involve his family? Stay quiet?
How should we comment when he posts expletive laden tirades that threaten to destroy an entire civilisation? We should say nothing?
How about blowing people out of the water and killing survivors with no evidence whatsoever? War crime? Well, yeah. But aren't we allowed to complain about that?
Do we not say anything about idiotic, punitive and illegal tariffs randomly scattered across the globe which now have to be repaid?
Am I personally allowed to complain about the many thousands of dollars extra it took my wife and I to get home from overseas because this dumb war (oh, sorry - it's not a war sez he) had shut down a lot of Middle East airports?
Can we not call him out as mathematically illiterate when he says he's dropped prices by 400, 700, 1200%?
Maybe we shouldn't comment when he threatens to invade a friendly sovereign country, by force if necessary?

Look, again, I could be here all bloody night adding to this list but I can't be bothered. But what I really want to know is if it's OK by you if me and a lot of other people are allowed to denigrate this buffoon for all he has done and all he is doing as we see fit. Yeah? Well, thanks Rob. Really appreciate it. As long as you don't dare insinuate that all these deserved and often heated complaints regarding the worst, most corrupt, immature and incompetent leader of any democratic country I've ever seen in all my years on this planet is somehow our fault for some moron's need to make a name for himself.

The problem is in the White House. Well, apart from the times when he's at Mar A Lago with all those classified papers or on the golf course getting one of his minions to reposition wayward shots.

Bradskii said:

Look, again, I could be here all bloody night adding to this list but I can't be bothered. But what I really want to know is if it's OK by you if me and a lot of other people are allowed to denigrate this buffoon for all he has done and all he is doing as we see fit. Yeah? Well, thanks Rob. Really appreciate it. As long as you don't dare insinuate that all these deserved and often heated complaints regarding the worst, most corrupt, immature and incompetent leader of any democratic country I've ever seen in all my years on this planet is somehow our fault for some moron's need to make a name for himself.

Click to expand...

You can rip on him all you want and criticize him all you want.

But there's a stark contrast between that, and the kind of things tens of thousands of people tune in and listen to the streams of people like Hasan Piker. (who regularly endorses and sanitizes the concept of political violence).


For instance, it's fine for someone to say "He's a buffoon who mishandles everything he touches, and is creating problems for the country"

What's not fine, is if that critique is followed up with "And the only way to stop it is to make the streets run red with their blood -- these bleep'ers just need to be taken out" (an actual statement he made)

Pointing out problems is good, framing the situation as if "things are so bad, that the only way to make real change is to engage in violence" is bad.



And that's really the crux of the problem. Streamers (especially ones in the Twitch community, not sure why that bunch is so weird -- well...I have some theories) engage in a lot of doomsday rhetoric, where they really seem to want to instill a hopelessness that gives the people the impression that the normal political process is futile, so the only way to make change is to do something drastic.

ThatRobGuy said:

For instance, it's fine for someone to say "He's a buffoon who mishandles everything he touches, and is creating problems for the country"

What's not fine, is if that critique is followed up with "And the only way to stop it is to make the streets run red with their blood -- these bleep'ers just need to be taken out" (an actual statement he made)

Click to expand...

That is not true. And I think you know it. So you need to change your post, please.

Why you posted it is beyond me. Piker's quote is from an online discussion he had about landlords who don't rent their properties. I can't link to the media report of that discussion because he was being so obviously over the top that it's not funny, but there's a lot of bad language (you can find it using the guy's name and 'run with blood'). There's even a link of him saying it.

You plainly meant that the comment referenced Trump. It most certainly didn't. And if you thought he was being serious, then you have a serious problem differentiating genuine comments from ones that are hyperbolic to the max for humorous effect. There are cases when someone has got close to a line that some people would say might cross it - on both sides of politics. Misrepresenting what someone you say said about Trump tends to make one think that you are over egging the pudding to try to make a case. You failed.

Bradskii said:

That is not true. And I think you know it. So you need to change your post, please.

Why you posted it is beyond me. Piker's quote is from an online discussion he had about landlords who don't rent their properties. I can't link to the media report of that discussion because he was being so obviously over the top that it's not funny, but there's a lot of bad language (you can find it using the guy's name and 'run with blood'). There's even a link of him saying it.

You plainly meant that the comment referenced Trump. It most certainly didn't. And if you thought he was being serious, then you have a serious problem differentiating genuine comments from ones that are hyperbolic to the max for humorous effect. There are cases when someone has got close to a line that some people would say might cross it - on both sides of politics. Misrepresenting what someone you say said about Trump tends to make one think that you are over egging the pudding to try to make a case. You failed.

Click to expand...

It was meant to be an example of the kind of rhetoric that happens in those environments


"Someone has to do it" (to an applause break) and "the fact that everyone knows what I mean shows there's a lot of untapped revolutionary potential"

He's also the same one who praised the killing of the healthcare CEO.


As I noted in the post:
Pointing out problems is good, framing the situation as if "things are so bad, that the only way to make real change is to engage in violence" is bad.

And that's really the crux of the problem. Streamers (especially ones in the Twitch community, not sure why that bunch is so weird -- well...I have some theories) engage in a lot of doomsday rhetoric, where they really seem to want to instill a hopelessness that gives the people the impression that the normal political process is futile, so the only way to make change is to do something drastic.


And that's the exact type of thing that's rather commonplace in the "Twitch-sphere"

ThatRobGuy said:

It was meant to be an example of the kind of rhetoric that happens in those environments

Will Chamberlain (@willchamberlain) on X

Reminder that Hasan Piker publicly advocated for President Trump’s assassination Perhaps one of his lunatic followers decided to give it a shot https://t.co/CL6d18H2ZX

x.com

"Someone has to do it" (to an applause break) and "the fact that everyone knows what I mean shows there's a lot of untapped revolutionary potential"

He's also the same one who praised the killing of the healthcare CEO.


As I noted in the post:
Pointing out problems is good, framing the situation as if "things are so bad, that the only way to make real change is to engage in violence" is bad.

And that's really the crux of the problem. Streamers (especially ones in the Twitch community, not sure why that bunch is so weird -- well...I have some theories) engage in a lot of doomsday rhetoric, where they really seem to want to instill a hopelessness that gives the people the impression that the normal political process is futile, so the only way to make change is to do something drastic.


And that's the exact type of thing that's rather commonplace in the "Twitch-sphere"

Click to expand...

Is your problem that Hasan Piker creates a coarsening of the political discourse? How is his statements worse than Trump being glad at the death of Robert Mueller or his allowing the blowing up of presumed narcotics smugglers boats? The one that was stricken twice even when capsized and basically split in half (iirc), shows that violence is apparently ok with Trump.

The one doing the most harm to civil discourse must be Trump.

Stopped_lurking said:

Is your problem that Hasan Piker creates a coarsening of the political discourse? How is his statements worse than Trump being glad at the death of Robert Mueller

Click to expand...

Because as terrible as "being happy at the death of a rival" is, it's not as bad actually encouraging people to cause the death.

The same way if someone said "I'm glad they got their car stolen, serves them right for all their weak crime policies", it wouldn't be quite as bad as actually encouraging people to go steal a car.

Stopped_lurking said:

or his allowing the blowing up of presumed narcotics smugglers boats? The one that was stricken twice even when capsized and basically split in half (iirc), shows that violence is apparently ok with Trump.

Click to expand...

Not a great comparison... The executive branch (through use of military/police resources) are allowed to engage in certain things the general public cannot.

For instance, if a president's DOJ/FBI orders a raid on someone's home due to a suspected violation of some sort, they're within their powers to do that. As where, if I suspect my neighbor is doing something illegal, and I go kick his door in with a gun and start loading "evidence" in the back of my car, I'd be going to jail for that.


Furthermore, for the people who use the strikes on the suspected drug boats as evidence of "an out of control executive branch" and the streamers using "democracy is over, someone should do something drastic" rhetoric...

Why were the responses from the progressive crowd much more measured when this kind of stuff was going on?

Less than two weeks ago, the United States conducted a drone strike over central Yemen, killing one al-Qaeda operative. The strike was the last under Obama (that we know of). The 542 drone strikes that Obama authorized killed an estimated 3,797 people, including 324 civilians. As he reportedly told senior aides in 2011: “Turns out I’m really good at killing people. Didn’t know that was gonna be a strong suit of mine.”


For those who remember the scorecard... The Obama admin tried to claim that a previous 14 year old 9/11-related authorization covered their current actions, despite using the drones against groups that weren't affiliated with al Qaeda, and some that were against groups that didn't even exist on 9/11.

Sure, there were some who voiced objections when that was going on, but nothing near the "doomsday" tone they use to describe the drug boat situation.

essentialsaltes said:

3 days after correspondents’ dinner, FBI still unsure who shot officer outside ballroom​

The Secret Service officer was wearing a bulletproof vest, but sources say investigators haven’t found the fragment that pierced it — and can’t definitively say whether it came from the suspect.

If you don't find that bit, you must acquit.

Click to expand...

Many people are saying it's possible the perp did not fire any shots, and the hit officer was hit by friendly fire.

essentialsaltes said:

Many people are saying it's possible the perp did not fire any shots, and the hit officer was hit by friendly fire.

Click to expand...

That wouldn’t surprise me.

Tropical Wilds said:

That wouldn’t surprise me.

Click to expand...

One of the reports I saw suggested that the officer who was hit fired 5 shots (and didn't manage to hit the perp with any of them).

Not exactly a glowing endorsement of the marksmanship of the guys who were tasked with guarding that particular checkpoint.


'This heroic officer who was hit, fired five times at Allen, who was not shot, but fell to the ground and was promptly arrested.'
When asked whether Allen fired the shot that hit the agent, Blanche said he couldn't confirm it and that the forensic analysis is still ongoing.
'We want to get that right. So we're still looking at that,' he added.

ThatRobGuy said:

One of the reports I saw suggested that the officer who was hit fired 5 shots (and didn't manage to hit the perp with any of them).

Not exactly a glowing endorsement of the marksmanship of the guys who were tasked with guarding that particular checkpoint.

Click to expand...

Firing a weapon under intense pressure isn’t as easy as it looks in movies, TV. That’s while LE are so often emptying clips into “perps”. Shoot until the “threat” is “neutralized”.

ThatRobGuy said:

One of the reports I saw suggested that the officer who was hit fired 5 shots (and didn't manage to hit the perp with any of them).

Not exactly a glowing endorsement of the marksmanship of the guys who were tasked with guarding that particular checkpoint.


'This heroic officer who was hit, fired five times at Allen, who was not shot, but fell to the ground and was promptly arrested.'
When asked whether Allen fired the shot that hit the agent, Blanche said he couldn't confirm it and that the forensic analysis is still ongoing.
'We want to get that right. So we're still looking at that,' he added.

Click to expand...

It doesn’t make them look good or bad. Shooting at close range in a crowded room under threat especially with a long-range weapon is not easy at all.

ThatRobGuy said:

It was meant to be an example of the kind of rhetoric that happens in those environments

Click to expand...

No, it wasn't. You made a conscious choice to post a quote that was obviously about Trump and then immediately followed it with 'and look what this guy said'.

We are talking about Trump and his limitless number of faults. Your shock-horror example of so called violent rhetoric was about landlords sitting on empty properties. What were you expecting? People to gasp and say 'Gee, he's right you know. It was nothing but a call to assassinate the president'. I notice you made no attempt to link to the 'violent' quote, which took me all of 3 or 4 seconds to find. Did you think no-one would look to check to see if it was about Trump?

Please, don't treat me like an idiot.

ThatRobGuy said:

Because as terrible as "being happy at the death of a rival" is, it's not as bad actually encouraging people to cause the death.

Click to expand...

The Trump administration is causing actual death, how is this less problematic?

ThatRobGuy said:

The same way if someone said "I'm glad they got their car stolen, serves them right for all their weak crime policies", it wouldn't be quite as bad as actually encouraging people to go steal a car.

Click to expand...

They blew up a capsized boat.

ThatRobGuy said:

Not a great comparison... The executive branch (through use of military/police resources) are allowed to engage in certain things the general public cannot.

Click to expand...

When they strike an already capsized boat, it looks worse than saying violent words.

ThatRobGuy said:

For instance, if a president's DOJ/FBI orders a raid on someone's home due to a suspected violation of some sort, they're within their powers to do that.

Click to expand...

Pretty sure, that there's some kind of warrant necessary. This is not comparable to blowing two shipwrecked persons out of the water.

ThatRobGuy said:

As where, if I suspect my neighbor is doing something illegal, and I go kick his door in with a gun and start loading "evidence" in the back of my car, I'd be going to jail for that.


Furthermore, for the people who use the strikes on the suspected drug boats as evidence of "an out of control executive branch" and the streamers using "democracy is over, someone should do something drastic" rhetoric...

Why were the responses from the progressive crowd much more measured when this kind of stuff was going on?

Click to expand...

Why should I care about some loosely defined progressive crowd? To answer your question, because that boat strike is real hard to describe as justified, I'm fully prepared to condemn any of Obama's strikes especially if they were performed on an already incapacitated enemy.

ThatRobGuy said:

Obama’s Final Drone Strike Data | Council on Foreign Relations

As Donald Trump assumes office today, he inherits a targeted killing program that has been the cornerstone of U.S. counterterrorism strategy over the past eight years. On January 23, 2009, just three days into his presidency, President Obama authorized his first kinetic military action: two...

www.cfr.org

Less than two weeks ago, the United States conducted a drone strike over central Yemen, killing one al-Qaeda operative. The strike was the last under Obama (that we know of). The 542 drone strikes that Obama authorized killed an estimated 3,797 people, including 324 civilians. As he reportedly told senior aides in 2011: “Turns out I’m really good at killing people. Didn’t know that was gonna be a strong suit of mine.”


For those who remember the scorecard... The Obama admin tried to claim that a previous 14 year old 9/11-related authorization covered their current actions, despite using the drones against groups that weren't affiliated with al Qaeda, and some that were against groups that didn't even exist on 9/11.

Sure, there were some who voiced objections when that was going on, but nothing near the "doomsday" tone they use to describe the drug boat situation.

Click to expand...

You seem to allude to some perceived hypocrisy here, so who were the persons that supported Obama's strikes of already incapacitated enemies but now voice their dissent with Trump's second strike?

PRO-TRUMP ASSASSINS
**********************************

1) Scott and Steven Leader
- beat with metal poles and urinated on a 58 year old Latino homeless man
- told cops “Donald Trump was right, all these illegals need to be deported.”
- Trump publicly defended them as “very passionate,” smiling while hearing about the crime, and while he cheered it

2) William Celli
- built a pipe bomb and threatened the mass murder of Muslims at a mosque
- vowed, “I’ll follow this MAN (Trump) to the end of the world.”

3)John Roos,
- Trump supporter who threatened to kill Barack Obama and FBI agents
- called Trump “the savior of America”
- police found pipe bombs at his home.

4) Patrick Cruisis
- shot and killed 20 people before surrendering to the police
- 21-year-old alleged shooter, is a fan of President Donald Trump
- Twitter account contains liked tweets that include a ‘BuildTheWall’ hashtag, a photo using guns to spell out ‘Trump,”

5) Kyle Rittenhouse -
- shot and killed Joseph Rosenbaum, 36, and Anthony Huber, 26, and wounded Gaige Grosskreutz, 27
- at 17 in illegal possession of assault rifle - travelled 20 miles to serve as self appointed security guard-vigilante in another city and state
- testified that the shootings were in self-defence - verdict was celebrated by Republican politicians.
- Trump stated that what Rotterhouse went through was proprietorial misconduct-and he should not have had to suffer through a trial


https://www.quora.com/How-many-mass...sociated-with-Trump-in-some-manner-or-another

Stopped_lurking said:

You seem to allude to some perceived hypocrisy here, so who were the persons that supported Obama's strikes of already incapacitated enemies but now voice their dissent with Trump's second strike?

Click to expand...

What I was referring to was the measured responses to the Obama drone strikes vs. the tone when discussing the boat strikes.

While there were staunch libertarians who condemned both with equal vigor, there wasn't any "democracy is over, the sky is falling, the executive branch has lost all discipline" kind of talk from democrats (or democrat-aligned media outlets) regarding the drone strikes like there is for the trump boat strikes.

ThatRobGuy said:

What I was referring to was the measured responses to the Obama drone strikes vs. the tone when discussing the boat strikes.

While there were staunch libertarians who condemned both with equal vigor, there wasn't any "democracy is over, the sky is falling, the executive branch has lost all discipline" kind of talk from democrats (or democrat-aligned media outlets) regarding the drone strikes like there is for the trump boat strikes.

Click to expand...

The Atlantic seems to have seen it as bad at least.

Besides, that for it to be actually hypocritical the same persons would have to have supported one and dissented of the other (given that the situations were like enough, which I don't know).

But to go back to the more poignant question, why complain about the political discourse Hasan Piker creates, when the Trump administration does something much worse (talking vs killing)?

Elongated said:

Firing a weapon under intense pressure isn’t as easy as it looks in movies, TV. That’s while LE are so often emptying clips into “perps”. Shoot until the “threat” is “neutralized”.

Click to expand...

But don't we have an expectation than the guys who have that job are supposed to have a little more prowess with such things than your average Joe off the streets?

Stopped_lurking said:

But to go back to the more poignant question, why complain about the political discourse Hasan Piker creates, when the Trump administration does something much worse (talking vs killing)?

Click to expand...

Ultimately, because that kind of talk can more people killed than just the elected officials.

Whether people liked or hated him, Charlie Kirk (to the best of my knowledge) never bombed anyone or killed anyone, but still ended up taking a bullet in the neck because someone (much like the person in this case - heavily involved in that same indie-game/Twitch/streamer subculture) got all whipped up into a frenzy and thought that something drastic needed to be done.

ThatRobGuy said:

Ultimately, because that kind of talk can more people killed than just the elected officials.

Whether people liked or hated him, Charlie Kirk (to the best of my knowledge) never bombed anyone or killed anyone, but still ended up taking a bullet in the neck because someone (much like the person in this case - heavily involved in that same indie-game/Twitch/streamer subculture) got all whipped up into a frenzy and thought that something drastic needed to be done.

Click to expand...

What evidence do we have that Kirk was shot because of something Hasan Piker said, instead of something Charlie Kirk said?

But to go back to the more poignant question, why complain about the political discourse Hasan Piker creates, when the Trump administration does something much worse (talking vs killing)?

Bradskii said:

We are talking about Trump and his limitless number of faults. Your shock-horror example of so called violent rhetoric was about landlords sitting on empty properties. What were you expecting? People to gasp and say 'Gee, he's right you know. It was nothing but a call to assassinate the president'. I notice you made no attempt to link to the 'violent' quote, which took me all of 3 or 4 seconds to find. Did you think no-one would look to check to see if it was about Trump?

Please, don't treat me like an idiot.

Click to expand...

Seems like you're zeroing in on a technicality here as to avoid the substance of the debate.

Because I paraphrased something that summarized the kinds of things Piker engages in (which is "criticize Trump and republicans", then "encourage violence" because "that's the only way to accomplish change") rather than using a precise quote, that's the part you're locking in on.


Here's another quote or two from Piker:

“If you cared about Medicare fraud or Medicaid fraud, you would kill Rick Scott.”

(in response to sentiments that the healthcare CEO assassination was justified)
“Yeah. Friedrich Engels wrote about the concept of social murder. And Brian Thompson, as the United Healthcare C.E.O., was engaging in a tremendous amount of social murder.”