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
I haven't read his manifesto or anything but he seemed pretty much against fossil fuels and insurance companies, what are we basing his political association on?
It's complicated. His politics doesn't seem to fit neatly in any box. If you wanted to pick out facts to paint him as too right wing for the right wing, you can do it. If you wanted to pick out other facts to paint him as the new coming of Weather Underground, you could do that, too. He's also at a time in his life where your politics can shift around a lot, so posts from just a few years ago may not reflect where he is now.
I can say one thing with certainty: he hates people who are worth hating.
https://newrepublic.com/post/189162/uhc-united-healthcare-shooter-what-we-know-right-wing-politics
So no.
No right winger is going out and following AOC or saying the stuff he did in his manifesto.
At worst he was a bit of a tech bro. Honestly he sounds like a shitlib that finally got radicalised into a leftist.
Or maybe he just didn’t give a shit about any of that and was just really pissed off at health insurance companies, felt that all representation had failed us, and the only solution left was violence
But people will read an article that has barely any info and jump to wild conclusions based on pure speculation to categorize him on one of the “teams” rather than assume he is one of the vast amount of politically apathetic individuals that make up america.
so tons of the right wing will move to paint him as a leftist, because it’s simple with the lack of info available and the current rhetoric surrounding the event, because it is advantageous to them. the left wing will move to distance themselves because there is info available that casts doubt on his being a leftist and again it is advantageous for them to distance.
And while both spend time shitflinging away responsibility for this person, who never claimed either side, it will deflect from discussing the very real issue he exposed with his act: the health care system in this country is so fucked up that when it drives someone to murder an executive a huge amount of people cheer them on
As a leftist I’m not moving to distance my self from him whatsoever. That sounds more like a shitlib thing tbh.
Seriously, if I was a decade younger, a wee bit more well off, and less tied down by family, I could absolutely see myself doing what he did, especially pushed with back pain.
That said, if the FBI is reading this post because I did do something, no I didn't, you didn't hear nothin' from me.
On whatever time a crime may have been committed, I would like to say that @taiyang@lemmy.world was with me in person and doing nothing illegal.
His twitter reposted a right wing Billionaire, the one that paid to have Hulk Hogan go on stage and ask people to vote for Donald Trump. He's also made a lot of statements about the Unabomber and been anti-immigration in the past.
Maybe instead of assigning him to a group we should all agree he wasn't of calm or consistent mind.
Did you watch the video? It’s like a 20 second clip of the guy saying lots of tech people are neurodiverse and thus don’t allow their dreams to be crushed. It’s simplistic bullshit, but resharing it seems pretty centrist as it’s not rwnj content.
And fuck no? I consider this man one of the most sane, and he calmly planned and worked hard to achieve a noble goal.
In particular, he really emphasized remorse about any collateral damage and took significant steps to minimize it. His statement about the unibomber was essentially "Good motive but horrible execution that hurt a lot of innocents"
In his attack there was a nearby bystander who saw literally everything and he neither harmed her nor appeared to threaten her in any direct manner. He moved to pass her so she could flee.
I still think murder=bad but he took real steps to make sure the only damage from his actions was on the CEO and himself.
I realize I'm nitpicking, but if Charles Koch made a nice informative tweet about some random benign shit like first-aid I wouldn't suddenly be spreading to the world the message of Charles Koch. I wouldn't actively promote the enemy of us all.
And also they shouldn't be making generalizing stereotypes like that in the first place.
Oh man, bro was reposting Peter Thiel lmao. You're correct, Phoneymouse, good link.
A part of me envies him for still being able to appreciate Hulk Hogan despite how awful a person he is.