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

RocksInMyHead said:

I never said that it was neutral. People can have valid points and still be biased. And, having watched the whole video that you referenced, she made some very valid points.

I don't see any discussion of the meaning of "revolution" in any of that. I certainly disagree with his stance that healthcare CEOs being indirectly responsible for a lot of unnecessary death means that it's okay to kill them, or that corporations "stealing" from their employees means it's okay to steal from them in return, but it's not clear to me why those would be key parts of this nebulous "revolution" that he refers to.

The core idea that people are increasingly dissatisfied, and that people should work to turn that dissatisfaction into meaningful change for the country, is a perfectly sound concept.

Click to expand...

Given that he labels himself as a Marxist/Communist...what kinds of things have Communist revolutions involved in the past? I don't think it's unreasonable to make some inferences about that based on his statements, his apathy toward people who he doesn't like getting shot, and the broader ideological position he subscribes to.

As I noted earlier, if it was Nick Fuentes or Steven Crowder (amid a Democratic administration) saying "Somebody's gotta do it, and we all know what that means [wink/grin]", would it even be debated?. or would people would immediately say "well, obviously that's a thinly veiled permission structure to commit violence?


In Piker's video response to witnessing Kirk get shot, while he seemed to be initially shocked by the visual of seeing it happen, his follow up commentary suggested any concern he had was self-serving as his main concern seemed to be "this means that the right could try to even by coming after us"

"Policies I don't like are tantamount to violence" are going to influence a certain percentage of people to actually believe that and act accordingly.

Jeff Carr said:

I watched the footage on TV. When the shots rang out, people panicked, stood up and moved out. Trump however was not panicked, was unperturbed, just sat there as if he knew what was going on. I find it all a bit suspicious.

Click to expand...

You and a ton of conspiracy theorists on both sides of the divide. I'm in the middle. That attempt to me, wasn't as suspicious as the Butler, PA attempt, where he hopped up on his feet, fist raised to the sky. Now that was beyond suspicious.

ThatRobGuy said:

As I noted earlier, if it was Nick Fuentes or Steven Crowder (amid a Democratic administration) saying "Somebody's gotta do it, and we all know what that means [wink/grin]", would it even be debated?. or would people would immediately say "well, obviously that's a thinly veiled permission structure to commit violence?

Click to expand...

Some people definitely would (kinda like you're doing here...hmm...), but it would depend on context. The example you've used does not appear to be a call to violence. He says, "And you [Taylor Lorenz] actually wrote about it, and it was a great video, where you talked about, you know, 'Someone has to do it.'" When you quoted him, making your case that it was a call to violence, you left off that whole first part, which gives some important context to what he's saying. He's talking about Lorenz's video, which is about the phenomenon of people making the "Someone has to do it" meme posts, not actually making the statement himself (which your post implied). The subsequent part, following the laughter, is demonstrating that the audience knows the meme, and understands what the people in the meme are implying - and the fact that they do know that is illustrative of the fact that there's a deep undercurrent of dissatisfaction in society.

ThatRobGuy said:

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

Click to expand...

You misrepresented what someone said in reference to Trump and you want to call it a 'technichality'? Gee, Mr. Orwell would be proud.

ThatRobGuy said:

No more or less than the civilian casualties that happened with these incidents

Click to expand...

Maybe someone further down the thread has explained to you the difference between collateral deaths and actively targeting people in the water. In case they haven't, one is an unfortunate result of the fog of war. And the other deliberate act is classed as a war crime.

But hey, maybe the defence could be: 'But it can't be. We never declared war in the first place'.

ThatRobGuy said:

Correct, so people suggesting "well, if Trump's rhetoric wasn't so bad, then people wouldn't be so angry" would border on victim blaming in that instance.

Click to expand...

Ah, so we're back to this being the fault of everyone who complains about what Trump says and does all the time.

Hey guys. Yes, all you that are finding fault with Trump on a daily basis and expressing outrage at his behaviour. Yes, you know who you are. Can you please crank it back a little? Some more neutral observers (hah!) are concerned about the bad vibes. You know, the negativity. It might make people angry apparently.

We need some positive comments to placate the lunatics. Something along the lines of 'Well done, Mr. President. You haven't berated any religious leaders or heads of state for a full 24 hours (bear in mind I haven't checked the news as I write this)'. Or 'Gee, our gas still costs a lot less than the Europeans are paying. Lucky us!'

RocksInMyHead said:

Some people definitely would (kinda like you're doing here...hmm...), but it would depend on context. The example you've used does not appear to be a call to violence. He says, "And you [Taylor Lorenz] actually wrote about it, and it was a great video, where you talked about, you know, 'Someone has to do it.'" When you quoted him, making your case that it was a call to violence, you left off that whole first part, which gives some important context to what he's saying. He's talking about Lorenz's video, which is about the phenomenon of people making the "Someone has to do it" meme posts, not actually making the statement himself (which your post implied). The subsequent part, following the laughter, is demonstrating that the audience knows the meme, and understands what the people in the meme are implying - and the fact that they do know that is illustrative of the fact that there's a deep undercurrent of dissatisfaction in society.

Click to expand...

...but then what's with the Cheshire cat grin to the audience? Does that add just a little context to it? Especially with the backdrop of both them of at various points expressing "joy" at the events of others being killed?

If Taylor Lorenz is going to go on an international program and put on a big wide-eyed happy face (almost to the point of coming across as sociopathic) and saying a CEO getting killed gave her feelings of joy, and Hasan is going to do interviews with the Times rationalize it by saying someone killing the guy was a response to what he sees as "social murder".

Aren't both of those going beyond just "talking about it"?


Had a person ran a piece where they claimed "I'm just talking about conflicts between police and protestors and what causes it", but then went on a widely televised program, and said it gave them joy (with a big smiling face) to see Renee Good or Alex Pretti getting shot by ICE, one would understandably question whether or not they were "just discussing it" or actually quasi-advocating for it.

Bradskii said:

Ah, so we're back to this being the fault of everyone who complains about what Trump says and does all the time.

Click to expand...

No, it's the fault of everyone who both A) complains about Trump, AND B) inundating their followers with a sense of hopelessness in the proper political process that makes them think normal procedures are futile and something more drastic needs to be done.

If a person spends half of their time on the stream telling people that one political party is the devil incarnate, and the other half saying (paraphrasing) "engaging in normal political process doesn't matter, our system is broken, these capitalist scum have it rigged", they're basically fostering the environment that's going create these sort of nutjobs.


If I perceived a real problem -- let's just use "hey, I'm seeing people getting assaulted on the subway and have been assaulted myself" --, and you successfully convinced me that "the courts are rigged against the victims, you'll never get justice there, doesn't matter who you vote for, they're on the side of the subway criminals, don't bother calling the cops, they don't care about you"

If you were charismatic enough to entirely convince me that all of that was 100% true, then why wouldn't I go "full Bernie Goetz mode"?

Likewise, if someone actually, truly, and sincerely believed the Marxist rhetoric that Hasan espouses regularly, why wouldn't they grab a gun and start whacking "capitalist fat cats"? After all, if what Hasan Piker says is true, then that is the only logical practical solution.

ThatRobGuy said:

No, it's the...

Click to expand...

Really not interested in any more excuses.

Bradskii said:

Maybe someone further down the thread has explained to you the difference between collateral deaths and actively targeting people in the water. In case they haven't, one is an unfortunate result of the fog of war. And the other deliberate act is classed as a war crime.

Click to expand...

I know you're trying to make some sort of massive distinction between what Obama did and what Trump did, but the differences are negligible.



Reliance on a previous authorization to claim the actions were technically constitutional? Check
(Trump relied on a dated war powers measure, Obama relied on a Bush administration authorization to go after al Qaeda - despite many of the targeted not being affiliated and groups that were not around in 2001)

Creative math to make it sound less terrible? Check
(Obama embraced a disputed method for counting civilian casualties that effectively counted all military-age males in a strike zone as combatants, according to several administration officials, unless there was explicit intelligence posthumously proving them innocent)

If Trump were a Democrat, and embracing Democratic positions on other issues, progressives would be handling the situation with the same "kid gloves" they used to handle it when Obama did it.

Bradskii said:

Really not interested in any more excuses.

Click to expand...

It's not excuses, it's a detailed response to your post.

If you don't want to address it, and think that your post-snip "this is beneath me" routine is convincing anyone that you won the exchange, that's your perrogative.

Bradskii said:

You misrepresented what someone said in reference to Trump and you want to call it a 'technichality'? Gee, Mr. Orwell would be proud.

Click to expand...

And you're using the Socratic debate tactic of locking on to a trivial matter, and make it all about that rather than the substance of the conversation.

Similar to if we were having a debate about unemployment rates and the causes, and I said 14% instead of 17% or slightly botched a quote, and then trying to lock in on that because you think that's the area where you can "win" or delegitimize the rest of what I said.

Andrew Breitbart would be proud.

ThatRobGuy said:

...but then what's with the Cheshire cat grin to the audience? Does that add just a little context to it? Especially with the backdrop of both them of at various points expressing "joy" at the events of others being killed?

Click to expand...

Maybe. Maybe not. I'm not a mind reader, and neither are you. And your history at predicting the thoughts of the people you talk with here on the forum is bad enough that I certainly wouldn't put any stock in your ability to divine the thoughts of people you've never interacted with.

I think this conversation has run its course. At this point, you're just speculating and inventing scenarios that fit the story you're trying to tell, which is just that - a story.

ThatRobGuy said:

And you're using the Socratic debate tactic of locking on to a trivial matter, and make it all about that rather than the substance of the conversation.

Click to expand...

As you said when I called you out for doing exactly that a while ago: you brought it up, so it's fair game. What's good for the goose is good for the gander.

And, for the record, misrepresenting a quote (which you've now done twice in this thread) in order to make it say something that that it wasn't actually saying, but that fits your narrative, is not a "trivial matter." It's a component of your argument, and therefore a valid subject of debate.

RocksInMyHead said:

As you said when I called you out for doing exactly that a while ago: you brought it up, so it's fair game. What's good for the goose is good for the gander.

Click to expand...

Did I only focus on that, or did I also address the "meat" of your post?

You'd be hard pressed to find and example of me giving someone the treatment of "you brought up this other thing, so I'm going to focus on that, and only that, and ignore the rest of your argument"

RocksInMyHead said:

Maybe. Maybe not. I'm not a mind reader, and neither are you. And your history at predicting the thoughts of the people you talk with here on the forum is bad enough that I certainly wouldn't put any stock in your ability to divine the thoughts of people you've never interacted with.

I think this conversation has run its course. At this point, you're just speculating and inventing scenarios that fit the story you're trying to tell, which is just that - a story.

Click to expand...

You don't have to be a mind reader or rely on speculation to know how the likes of Hasan Piker and Taylor Lorenz feel about conservatives and capitalists, the same way you don't need to be mind reader to know how Nick Fuentes and Richard Spencer feel about Jews and Black people.

They all play the "creatively coy" game and rely on body language thinly veiled vague appeals as to avoid liability, but if someone gets on TV and says they feel joy about someone else getting shot in the back of the head (the same way TikTok was full of far-leftists doing "dead fascist dance party" videos in the wake of Kirk taking one in the neck), that tends to remove a lot of that ambiguity to anyone looking at it honestly.

Giving people like that the benefit of the doubt, actually benefits nobody.

I say that, because unlike the staunch conservative camp, I don't think "all democrats are commies" or whatever broad-brush talking points they toss out.

But for democrats who still believe in the laws of supply & demand, and think people should be able to build a business and benefit off of it, feel that they're entitled to their own earnings (which I optimistically think describe most democrats), and understand that tearing down centuries-old cultural norms on a 1-year timeline may be a haphazard approach... I've got a newsflash, Hasan Piker (and is ilk) hates you too. Sure, he may put me up against the wall first, but if history is any indicator, they're not far behind me.

In almost every Communist revolution (almost without exception), they use social democrats (or similar ideologies) as a "tool" to get the person/party they want in power by appealing to certain points of overlap, and then turn on them once they're no longer useful and the right-wing is out of the way.

And that's not speculation, Marx's own writings indicate that he viewed those groups as necessary temporary tactical alliances to get one of their own in power. And history of Marxist authoritarians proves that pattern.

ThatRobGuy said:

No, it's the fault of everyone who both A) complains about Trump, AND B) inundating their followers with a sense of hopelessness in the proper political process that makes them think normal procedures are futile and something more drastic needs to be done.

If a person spends half of their time on the stream telling people that one political party is the devil incarnate, and the other half saying (paraphrasing) "engaging in normal political process doesn't matter, our system is broken, these capitalist scum have it rigged", they're basically fostering the environment that's going create these sort of nutjobs.

Click to expand...

Is there any evidence of a connection between Hasan Piker and Cole Allen? From the little I have seen from his manifesto or reasoning, it seems to be Trump he has a problem with.

With the information we have at hand right now, this just seems to be highly speculative and perhaps even irrelevant.

Have I missed something about his stated reasons anywhere?

I find the idea that Hasan Piker has more influence on making political violence acceptable than Trump, very strange. You know that he posted boat strikes on truth social? Those were people getting killed.

ThatRobGuy said:

If I perceived a real problem -- let's just use "hey, I'm seeing people getting assaulted on the subway and have been assaulted myself" --, and you successfully convinced me that "the courts are rigged against the victims, you'll never get justice there, doesn't matter who you vote for, they're on the side of the subway criminals, don't bother calling the cops, they don't care about you"

If you were charismatic enough to entirely convince me that all of that was 100% true, then why wouldn't I go "full Bernie Goetz mode"?

Likewise, if someone actually, truly, and sincerely believed the Marxist rhetoric that Hasan espouses regularly, why wouldn't they grab a gun and start whacking "capitalist fat cats"? After all, if what Hasan Piker says is true, then that is the only logical practical solution.

Click to expand...

Stopped_lurking said:

With the information we have at hand right now, this just seems to be highly speculative and perhaps even irrelevant.

Have I missed something about his stated reasons anywhere?

I find the idea that Hasan Piker has more influence on making political violence acceptable than Trump, very strange. You know that he posted boat strikes on truth social? Those were people getting killed.

Click to expand...

Piker (along with others in the Twitch/streamer-verse, he's far from the only presence in that space with that kind of rhetoric), have repeatedly made concerted efforts to convince people of the things I mentioned before... which is, everything conservatives do represent some sort of evidence of "this an attack against group XYZ" "this evidence of democracy in decline" "the normal political process in insufficient and rigged against you" etc...

When you successfully convince people "this is an existential threat", and then indoctrinate them with the belief that the US political process is rigged beyond repair and can't solve the problem, what does that leave as options to "address the threat"?


The question I posed to the other user:
If I perceived a real problem -- let's just use "hey, I'm seeing people getting assaulted on the subway and have been assaulted myself" --, and you successfully convinced me that "the courts are rigged against the victims, you'll never get justice there, doesn't matter who you vote for, they're on the side of the subway criminals, don't bother calling the cops, they don't care about you"

If you were charismatic enough to entirely convince me that all of that was 100% true, then why wouldn't I go "full Bernie Goetz mode" and just become a subway vigilante?


And like I noted, this is where people like Piker use the thinly veiled "saying it without saying it" ambiguity to avoid liability.

They hint at the violent approaches in a way where everyone knows what they mean, but be able to say "Well, I never encouraged violence!"


When in reality, if I told you there was a massive threat against you, and then spent hours and hours telling you all the ways the non-violent methods for addressing it were rigged and ineffective, that'd only leave you with some rather radical approaches.

ThatRobGuy said:

No, it's the fault of everyone who both A) complains about Trump, AND B) inundating their followers with a sense of hopelessness in the proper political process that makes them think normal procedures are futile and something more drastic needs to be done.

If a person spends half of their time on the stream telling people that one political party is the devil incarnate, and the other half saying (paraphrasing) "engaging in normal political process doesn't matter, our system is broken, these capitalist scum have it rigged", they're basically fostering the environment that's going create these sort of nutjobs.


If I perceived a real problem -- let's just use "hey, I'm seeing people getting assaulted on the subway and have been assaulted myself" --, and you successfully convinced me that "the courts are rigged against the victims, you'll never get justice there, doesn't matter who you vote for, they're on the side of the subway criminals, don't bother calling the cops, they don't care about you"

If you were charismatic enough to entirely convince me that all of that was 100% true, then why wouldn't I go "full Bernie Goetz mode"?

Likewise, if someone actually, truly, and sincerely believed the Marxist rhetoric that Hasan espouses regularly, why wouldn't they grab a gun and start whacking "capitalist fat cats"? After all, if what Hasan Piker says is true, then that is the only logical practical solution.

Click to expand...

You know there’s folks on the right who spend an inordinate amount of time casting the left side of the country in just as bad of a light, right? And I’m not talking about some streamer nobody ever heard of unless they spend way too much time on the internet. Prominent people.

Like the President.

ThatRobGuy said:

Piker (along with others in the Twitch/streamer-verse, he's far from the only presence in that space with that kind of rhetoric), have repeatedly made concerted efforts to convince people of the things I mentioned before... which is, everything conservatives do represent some sort of evidence of "this an attack against group XYZ" "this evidence of democracy in decline" "the normal political process in insufficient and rigged against you" etc...

When you successfully convince people "this is an existential threat", and then indoctrinate them with the belief that the US political process is rigged beyond repair and can't solve the problem, what does that leave as options to "address the threat"?


The question I posed to the other user:
If I perceived a real problem -- let's just use "hey, I'm seeing people getting assaulted on the subway and have been assaulted myself" --, and you successfully convinced me that "the courts are rigged against the victims, you'll never get justice there, doesn't matter who you vote for, they're on the side of the subway criminals, don't bother calling the cops, they don't care about you"

If you were charismatic enough to entirely convince me that all of that was 100% true, then why wouldn't I go "full Bernie Goetz mode" and just become a subway vigilante?

Click to expand...

Your conscience?

ThatRobGuy said:

And like I noted, this is where people like Piker use the thinly veiled "saying it without saying it" ambiguity to avoid liability.

They hint at the violent approaches in a way where everyone knows what they mean, but be able to say "Well, I never encouraged violence!"


When in reality, if I told you there was a massive threat against you, and then spent hours and hours telling you all the ways the non-violent methods for addressing it were rigged and ineffective, that'd only leave you with some rather radical approaches.

Click to expand...

What is the connection between Hasan Piker and Cole Allen?

Trump is repeatedly posting killings of supposed drug smugglers. Which is worse. From what has been released so far, there doesn't seem to be a connection between Hasan Piker and Cole Allen, but he seems irritated with Trump.

GoldenBoy89 said:

You know there’s folks on the right who spend an inordinate amount of time casting the left side of the country in just as bad of a light, right? And I’m not talking about some streamer nobody ever heard of unless they spend way too much time on the internet. Prominent people.

Like the President.

Click to expand...

He's known well enough that high profile publications are discussing him (with mixed reviews)


And several well known publications (like WaPo, Vox, and NY Times) have invited him to write guest pieces and do interviews.

So I don't think one needs to spend massive amounts of time on the internet to have had exposure, though I would assume his viewership skews much younger.


Your example of the conservative casting the left in just as bad a light (up to including the president), while true, doesn't account for the crucial distinction I noted earlier in my "part B"

Which was, convincing their followers that the American political process if futile and the whole system needs to be torn down.

So the difference would be akin to (paraphrasing)
Trump: "We need to save America and make it great again and save it from the radical left, that's why I'm endorsing Senate candidate XYZ, all of my MAGA people need to vote for them and not that other RINO guy"

Piker-types: "America is terrible, the whole institution is corrupted, voting is pointless because both parties are infested with capitalist corporate yes-men and broken beyond repair and the whole thing needs to be gutted"


While both are painting a much gloomier exaggerated hyperbolic picture of the real state of affairs, and both are maligning the other team as "the problem", the very fact Trump is endorsing candidates and portraying that as the path to political success is at least the baseline nod to the American political process.


I would say a decent example to compare it to would be the reaction of conservatives when the perception on their side was that "corporations like Disney have gotten too woke". Conservatives saw the remedy for that as "We'll push our legislature and governor to pass something that strips way their special exemption statuses", which you can disagree with their rationale and basis for objection, but at least it was a nod to the "normie" political process.

Whereas, if they'd thought the same things that Piker (and people like Piker's) followers are encouraged to think ("it's all a corporatist sham, the political process isn't going to solve this"), it's quite likely that there would have been a right-wing Mangione waiting outside of a hotel for the CEO of Disney.


I think (and this maybe optimistic on my part) that very few people are naturally inclined to prefer political violence as a first-line maneuver for affecting political change. For most people (and again, maybe I'm overly optimistic here), they would see that as a last resort that would be reserved only for once they're sufficiently been convinced that there's literally no other way for the change to occur.