J. Richard Singleton's Blog, page 2
June 29, 2018
May 9, 2018
#BoycottStarbucks
Well, no.
It is karmatic payback that a few years after Starbucks' ridiculously pretentious program to fix racism by writing "Race Together" on coffee cups will now be seen as racist after a YouTube video surfaced of two black men being arrested in a Philadelphia chain over trespassing.
What actually happened? (The story is ongoing.) Apparently two black men--clean cut but wearing street cloths--walked into a Starbucks and took a seat. One asked for the restroom code and was denied because neither he nor his friend had purchased anything. They were waiting for a third man, you see, and they were about to have a business meeting. They were asked to buy something or leave. They refused to buy anything and they refused to leave. The police were called. The police showed up, and asked the non-customers to comply with the manager's orders and leave. They still refused. They were arrested for trespassing, and the arrest was caught on tape and the story went viral.
There's a misconception that trespassing is when you break into a car and steal an iPad. If a business manager asks you to leave and you don't, it is criminal trespassing. If you were denied service, you can sue. These black men weren't denied service. Nor were they practicing a political protest, like the lunch counter sitters of the 1960s. They were engaged in a pissing contest with a white person or American society or the concept of private enterprise, and they lost. Nothing was resolved. They missed out on their business meeting and got arrested.
[Disclaimer: I have been a Starbucks bum numerous times in my life. I sit alone at a table, using the free WiFi. I will always give up my table if a customer needs it. I don't bring additional black guys with me.]
Starbucks bums are a serious problem (okay, not serious), and we should not allow liberal activists to change the subject from the rights and responsibilities of business owners to insure their actual customers are treated well. Though we should all be treated equally by our government, we are not all equal in a private business. Those who spend the most money should receive the best service to encourage repeat business. Those who spend the least should be treated with civility. Those who don't spend at all should be told to fuck off. Welcome to capitalism, bitch!
In my life, I've seen just as many black bums and black customers at various Starbucks throughout Los Angeles. And if you don't notice the bums because they're black makes you racist, not the manager who called the police on them. You must not be looking at black people outside of your preppy friends. When you really hate someone, you don't condemn their behavior. You just ignore them.
This is the bigotry of low expectations. You expect white people to act a certain way, but black people are to be given wide latitude to act like jackasses--whether it's smoking marijuana, saying "nigger" or being unemployed. It is the point where tolerance becomes condescension. This is similar to the Trayvon Martin case in that what began as an episode of racial profiling escalated. The manager shouldn't have called the police so quickly. However, he might not have noticed that the black men were there for only a few minutes. She might've thought they had been there for a half hour or an hour. She didn't notice them because she's colorblind.
Starbucks is worried that this boycott will be a campaign taken upon by their white liberal customers--the ones who spend hundred of dollars a month at their branches. The corporation could draw out this issue, and though it would be factually right, it would lose the PR war. The corporation is sending their employees to sensitivity training and paying these men's tuition. "See? Not racist!"
Now this former manager is going to sue Starbucks for wrongful termination, and the corporation will probably give her a few thousand dollars to go away. She wasn't properly prepared by corporate in the art of being taken out of context.
If a boycott does occur, the people who will suffer most are the people whose incomes are tied to tip jars. The CEO and other high-ranking officials--who never opening condoned racial profiling--will be mildly impacted. The black baristas will suffer the most, as their tips will fall off a cliff. Hardworking black men and women will suffer to protect the "rights" of bums. Good job, liberals. Fixing racism like champs!
It is karmatic payback that a few years after Starbucks' ridiculously pretentious program to fix racism by writing "Race Together" on coffee cups will now be seen as racist after a YouTube video surfaced of two black men being arrested in a Philadelphia chain over trespassing.
What actually happened? (The story is ongoing.) Apparently two black men--clean cut but wearing street cloths--walked into a Starbucks and took a seat. One asked for the restroom code and was denied because neither he nor his friend had purchased anything. They were waiting for a third man, you see, and they were about to have a business meeting. They were asked to buy something or leave. They refused to buy anything and they refused to leave. The police were called. The police showed up, and asked the non-customers to comply with the manager's orders and leave. They still refused. They were arrested for trespassing, and the arrest was caught on tape and the story went viral.
There's a misconception that trespassing is when you break into a car and steal an iPad. If a business manager asks you to leave and you don't, it is criminal trespassing. If you were denied service, you can sue. These black men weren't denied service. Nor were they practicing a political protest, like the lunch counter sitters of the 1960s. They were engaged in a pissing contest with a white person or American society or the concept of private enterprise, and they lost. Nothing was resolved. They missed out on their business meeting and got arrested.
[Disclaimer: I have been a Starbucks bum numerous times in my life. I sit alone at a table, using the free WiFi. I will always give up my table if a customer needs it. I don't bring additional black guys with me.]
Starbucks bums are a serious problem (okay, not serious), and we should not allow liberal activists to change the subject from the rights and responsibilities of business owners to insure their actual customers are treated well. Though we should all be treated equally by our government, we are not all equal in a private business. Those who spend the most money should receive the best service to encourage repeat business. Those who spend the least should be treated with civility. Those who don't spend at all should be told to fuck off. Welcome to capitalism, bitch!
In my life, I've seen just as many black bums and black customers at various Starbucks throughout Los Angeles. And if you don't notice the bums because they're black makes you racist, not the manager who called the police on them. You must not be looking at black people outside of your preppy friends. When you really hate someone, you don't condemn their behavior. You just ignore them.
This is the bigotry of low expectations. You expect white people to act a certain way, but black people are to be given wide latitude to act like jackasses--whether it's smoking marijuana, saying "nigger" or being unemployed. It is the point where tolerance becomes condescension. This is similar to the Trayvon Martin case in that what began as an episode of racial profiling escalated. The manager shouldn't have called the police so quickly. However, he might not have noticed that the black men were there for only a few minutes. She might've thought they had been there for a half hour or an hour. She didn't notice them because she's colorblind.
Starbucks is worried that this boycott will be a campaign taken upon by their white liberal customers--the ones who spend hundred of dollars a month at their branches. The corporation could draw out this issue, and though it would be factually right, it would lose the PR war. The corporation is sending their employees to sensitivity training and paying these men's tuition. "See? Not racist!"
Now this former manager is going to sue Starbucks for wrongful termination, and the corporation will probably give her a few thousand dollars to go away. She wasn't properly prepared by corporate in the art of being taken out of context.
If a boycott does occur, the people who will suffer most are the people whose incomes are tied to tip jars. The CEO and other high-ranking officials--who never opening condoned racial profiling--will be mildly impacted. The black baristas will suffer the most, as their tips will fall off a cliff. Hardworking black men and women will suffer to protect the "rights" of bums. Good job, liberals. Fixing racism like champs!
December 30, 2017
The sad saga of Keaton Jones...
The Internet rallied around this tearful Southern boy. He was invited to next year Avengers movie premiere. He got to meet pro football players. Except his daddy is a white supremacist in prison. He was literally photographed holding the Confederate battle flag like a young Dylan Roof. (We should not blame this boy. His momma gave him a flag and told him to pose, so he did.) People jumped to conclusions about what was going on. Things just got super awkward for all these celebrities who wanted to be this boy's friend.
But why did he ever have a GoFundMe page? He didn't need a liver transplant. This is in some regards a repeat of that homeless good Samaritan who ended up being rewarded with more than $300,000 in charitable donations. Why? Because he gave his last twenty to help a photogenic white woman buy gasoline. (Never mind that giving that much money to a recovering drug addict could trigger a relapse.) People aren't giving to homeless shelters or food kitchens. They have decided that this one homeless man was a great guy. Let's give him money!
This phenomenon is a mirror to our current tendency to publicly shame people who do something that we impulsively believe was wrong, without knowing about the CONTEXT in which the event took place. Jon Ronson just wrote a great book about this: So You've Been Publicly Shamed. This is where fake news comes from--it is created organically and is not agenda driven. Like a game of telephone, our love or outrage gets distorted. We can blame Russia or we can blame human stupidity.
So we must be more wary of these viral videos. Don't think with your heart. Think with your brain. Because that's what your brain is for.
But why did he ever have a GoFundMe page? He didn't need a liver transplant. This is in some regards a repeat of that homeless good Samaritan who ended up being rewarded with more than $300,000 in charitable donations. Why? Because he gave his last twenty to help a photogenic white woman buy gasoline. (Never mind that giving that much money to a recovering drug addict could trigger a relapse.) People aren't giving to homeless shelters or food kitchens. They have decided that this one homeless man was a great guy. Let's give him money!
This phenomenon is a mirror to our current tendency to publicly shame people who do something that we impulsively believe was wrong, without knowing about the CONTEXT in which the event took place. Jon Ronson just wrote a great book about this: So You've Been Publicly Shamed. This is where fake news comes from--it is created organically and is not agenda driven. Like a game of telephone, our love or outrage gets distorted. We can blame Russia or we can blame human stupidity.
So we must be more wary of these viral videos. Don't think with your heart. Think with your brain. Because that's what your brain is for.
October 27, 2017
To the genuine victims of Harvey Weinstein, let me start off by saing: "It wasn't your fault."
Everyone does disgraceful things to advance their careers. ("Art is good. Artists tend to be scumbags. But art is good!" as I like to tell myself.) So much of show business is based on personal relationships, fluid work hours/locations and a great deal of nudity. These things lead to nepotism and lax professional work environments. When President Bill Clinton was caught receiving oral sex in the Oval Office, it was so many in Hollywood who said "so what?" In show business, it is not uncommon for men to have sex with female--and sometimes male--subordinates. What Clinton participated in was not just a morality issue but also a sex crime. Hollywood has never really addressed that, rather changing the subject to illustrate Republican/conservative hypocrisies on sex.
The question of why this is all coming out now can be condensed to: Weinstein is an old lion. Past his prime, he's now too weak to defend himself against his adversaries. He is the last of the Hollywood gatekeepers, the old time studioheads who decided which movies would get made and who would have careers in filmmaking. Kids can now create their own passion projects, independent of Project Greenlight. The technologically modern idea of public shaming on a global scale has taken hold, and three decades of bad karma and masturbating into potted plants have come back to haunt him. It could not have happened to a nicer guy. So what was once an open secret became a public scandal, as countless women (and some men) must now disclose what they know and when they knew it. Not in 2000 years have so many Jews publically denied knowing one of their champions. Weinstein is like Jesus if Jesus had asked women to watch him shower. In a few months, Hollywood liberals will discover Roman Polanski raped a girl.
Donald Trump is being blamed for the issue of toxic male culture. (Why couldn't Hillary have become President? She would've stepped into her time machine and stopped that sex offender from sex offending and making her political career possible, thus triggering a paradox that...would've destroyed the observable universe!) The difference is that Weinstein paid millions to make these charges go away while Trump often refused to settle, refusing to acknowledge his sex crimes ever happened. The difference is there's audio of Trump joking about grabbing women by the pussy and audio of Weinstein attempting to do it. Weinstein's accusers outnumber Trump's by at least a factor of ten, many of whom are wealty and famous in their own right--and not all accusers are equals.
Let's not mince words: Weinstein was able to do what he did because he was making money. Money for Miramax. Money for Disney. Money for the Weinstein Company. If these companies paid out a million to settle claims in a given year, he would've made fifty times that for these companies.
The problem should be that Weinstein was using Miramax and later the Weinstein Company as a slush to pay off his inappropriate behavior. Art is a business here, and there is still some decorum in conducting one's self in a business setting. It should not be about how attractive he is or was.
It is my understanding that Weinstein was never exactly a ladies' man. (His pick-up move involved asking women if they wanted to watch him shower; far from ingenious, this was pathetic. Weinstein's MO was pathetic.) Like Bill Clinton, Weinstein was not popular with girls in school. Whereas Clinton had intelligence and charisma, Weinstein had intelligence and bluster. Cruelty got him to the top. So many of them behind the scenes of Hollywood--whether directors or producers or unemployed screenwriters--were weird kids growing up. They weren't the popular boys surrounded by legions of friends. This leaves a void in an older man's life, as he is guided by the same raw instincts but previously had no ability to satisfy them. You "use what you got" in this world, and Weinstein had power as a producer and a studio head.
At the root of these claims are typically Weinstein's attempts to get laid. Kate Beckinsale recounts her coming into the exec's hotel room (when she was 17!) and he clumsily attempted to seduce her. The actress recalled that it “did not cross my mind that this older, unattractive man would expect me to have any sexual interest in him.” Since Beckinsale opened this door, let's all agree that more women would've watched him shower if he looked like Brad Pitt. (By the way, how weird was it that Weinstein kept trying to bang Pitt's girlfriends?) So much of it having been harassment was not an issue of female professionalism--many of these women have had sex with their costars or coworkers--but the issue was that Weinstein wasn't hot. If he had been, it wouldn't have been sexual harassment so much as sexual fulfillment. Hollywood has long fought for the private sex lives of consenting adults--often while employing the most liberal uses of the terms "consenting" and "adult." The ladies wouldn't have been complaining if they were attracted to him; the scandal would be much smaller. Instead we have the image of real-world Jabba the Hut trying to find a girl to put on the gold bikini.
In defense of Harvey Weinstein, he probably didn't ruin that many careers. These women told him to go fuck himself--or stop fucking himself in front of them--and he moved on to the next woman. That he had Angelina Jolie and Gwyneth Paltrow blacklisted in the 90s stretches credibility. The work dried up for Mira Sorvino and Rosanna Arquette because they turned 30. They got old. Too old for teenage boys to whack off to them without thinking about their mothers. Megan Fox will soon be her generation's Mira Sorvino. Not Weinstein's fault, specifically. More of an issue of how time works.
Hollywood and Weinstein specifically contributed to a series of anti-Christian movies, espousing the hypocrisies of the Catholic Church and Christianity in general (Dogma, Doubt, Priest, Bob Roberts). Hollywood calls Trump a Nazi, while giving an Oscar to an actual Nazi. (I'm not kidding. Google Leni Riefenstahl.) The real perverts are Christian men, especially white Republicans. Gay men aren't freaks who like to touch boys; Catholic priests are freaks who like to touch boys. "SEE!?! LOOK AT THE HYPOCRISY!!! Vote for gay marriage." Vice-President and conservative Christian Mike Pence gets mocked for not wanting to be alone with a female, and Weinstein gets mocked for enjoying his private meetings with female coworkers. Hollywood can't have it both ways. Hollywood, like all of the American workforce, has to choose at what point do things appear inappropriate.
Meanwhile, so many mainstream artists have been living elbow deep in sexual perversion. They gave an Oscar to Roman Polanski, a well-known child rapist. Weinstein bundled millions to popular liberal candidates, including the Clintons and Obama. Donald Trump can breath a sigh of relief.
The question of why this is all coming out now can be condensed to: Weinstein is an old lion. Past his prime, he's now too weak to defend himself against his adversaries. He is the last of the Hollywood gatekeepers, the old time studioheads who decided which movies would get made and who would have careers in filmmaking. Kids can now create their own passion projects, independent of Project Greenlight. The technologically modern idea of public shaming on a global scale has taken hold, and three decades of bad karma and masturbating into potted plants have come back to haunt him. It could not have happened to a nicer guy. So what was once an open secret became a public scandal, as countless women (and some men) must now disclose what they know and when they knew it. Not in 2000 years have so many Jews publically denied knowing one of their champions. Weinstein is like Jesus if Jesus had asked women to watch him shower. In a few months, Hollywood liberals will discover Roman Polanski raped a girl.
Donald Trump is being blamed for the issue of toxic male culture. (Why couldn't Hillary have become President? She would've stepped into her time machine and stopped that sex offender from sex offending and making her political career possible, thus triggering a paradox that...would've destroyed the observable universe!) The difference is that Weinstein paid millions to make these charges go away while Trump often refused to settle, refusing to acknowledge his sex crimes ever happened. The difference is there's audio of Trump joking about grabbing women by the pussy and audio of Weinstein attempting to do it. Weinstein's accusers outnumber Trump's by at least a factor of ten, many of whom are wealty and famous in their own right--and not all accusers are equals.
Let's not mince words: Weinstein was able to do what he did because he was making money. Money for Miramax. Money for Disney. Money for the Weinstein Company. If these companies paid out a million to settle claims in a given year, he would've made fifty times that for these companies.
The problem should be that Weinstein was using Miramax and later the Weinstein Company as a slush to pay off his inappropriate behavior. Art is a business here, and there is still some decorum in conducting one's self in a business setting. It should not be about how attractive he is or was.
It is my understanding that Weinstein was never exactly a ladies' man. (His pick-up move involved asking women if they wanted to watch him shower; far from ingenious, this was pathetic. Weinstein's MO was pathetic.) Like Bill Clinton, Weinstein was not popular with girls in school. Whereas Clinton had intelligence and charisma, Weinstein had intelligence and bluster. Cruelty got him to the top. So many of them behind the scenes of Hollywood--whether directors or producers or unemployed screenwriters--were weird kids growing up. They weren't the popular boys surrounded by legions of friends. This leaves a void in an older man's life, as he is guided by the same raw instincts but previously had no ability to satisfy them. You "use what you got" in this world, and Weinstein had power as a producer and a studio head.
At the root of these claims are typically Weinstein's attempts to get laid. Kate Beckinsale recounts her coming into the exec's hotel room (when she was 17!) and he clumsily attempted to seduce her. The actress recalled that it “did not cross my mind that this older, unattractive man would expect me to have any sexual interest in him.” Since Beckinsale opened this door, let's all agree that more women would've watched him shower if he looked like Brad Pitt. (By the way, how weird was it that Weinstein kept trying to bang Pitt's girlfriends?) So much of it having been harassment was not an issue of female professionalism--many of these women have had sex with their costars or coworkers--but the issue was that Weinstein wasn't hot. If he had been, it wouldn't have been sexual harassment so much as sexual fulfillment. Hollywood has long fought for the private sex lives of consenting adults--often while employing the most liberal uses of the terms "consenting" and "adult." The ladies wouldn't have been complaining if they were attracted to him; the scandal would be much smaller. Instead we have the image of real-world Jabba the Hut trying to find a girl to put on the gold bikini.
In defense of Harvey Weinstein, he probably didn't ruin that many careers. These women told him to go fuck himself--or stop fucking himself in front of them--and he moved on to the next woman. That he had Angelina Jolie and Gwyneth Paltrow blacklisted in the 90s stretches credibility. The work dried up for Mira Sorvino and Rosanna Arquette because they turned 30. They got old. Too old for teenage boys to whack off to them without thinking about their mothers. Megan Fox will soon be her generation's Mira Sorvino. Not Weinstein's fault, specifically. More of an issue of how time works.
Hollywood and Weinstein specifically contributed to a series of anti-Christian movies, espousing the hypocrisies of the Catholic Church and Christianity in general (Dogma, Doubt, Priest, Bob Roberts). Hollywood calls Trump a Nazi, while giving an Oscar to an actual Nazi. (I'm not kidding. Google Leni Riefenstahl.) The real perverts are Christian men, especially white Republicans. Gay men aren't freaks who like to touch boys; Catholic priests are freaks who like to touch boys. "SEE!?! LOOK AT THE HYPOCRISY!!! Vote for gay marriage." Vice-President and conservative Christian Mike Pence gets mocked for not wanting to be alone with a female, and Weinstein gets mocked for enjoying his private meetings with female coworkers. Hollywood can't have it both ways. Hollywood, like all of the American workforce, has to choose at what point do things appear inappropriate.
Meanwhile, so many mainstream artists have been living elbow deep in sexual perversion. They gave an Oscar to Roman Polanski, a well-known child rapist. Weinstein bundled millions to popular liberal candidates, including the Clintons and Obama. Donald Trump can breath a sigh of relief.
October 5, 2017
Mandalay Bay - Las Vegas, Nevada
I expected the shooter to have been a white nationalist or a BLM activist--or certainly a home grown Islamic terrorist. No. (ISL, like the nerdy kid at your high school who claimed he had a Canadian girlfriend, claimed responsibility for this old white guy's behavior.) It was a millionaire white senior citizen--who lived in a retirement community--who killed almost 60 people and hospitalized almost 600.
If there were a political or social cause, the massacre at Mandalay Bay would be less terrible. It would've been about something. Instead, as of this writing, it was about a white millionaire with no political ideology killing a bunch of people because he could. A whale of a gambler with no particular grudge against the city of Las Vegas or the country music industry. He left behind no manifesto, no social media writings--and his family thought he was a harmless businessman with an interest in hunting. No, it was not a terrorist attack. (If every murder is a terrorist attack, then no murder is a terrorist attack. Hate crimes are closer to the definition of a terrorist attack.) It is a different kind of disturbing than a terrorist attack.
Banning bump stocks would not have stopped Virginia Tech, Newtown, Columbine or literally any other crime ever. (VT and Newton were done entirely with handguns.) Maybe Congress will thus muster the courage to do that.
If there were a political or social cause, the massacre at Mandalay Bay would be less terrible. It would've been about something. Instead, as of this writing, it was about a white millionaire with no political ideology killing a bunch of people because he could. A whale of a gambler with no particular grudge against the city of Las Vegas or the country music industry. He left behind no manifesto, no social media writings--and his family thought he was a harmless businessman with an interest in hunting. No, it was not a terrorist attack. (If every murder is a terrorist attack, then no murder is a terrorist attack. Hate crimes are closer to the definition of a terrorist attack.) It is a different kind of disturbing than a terrorist attack.
Banning bump stocks would not have stopped Virginia Tech, Newtown, Columbine or literally any other crime ever. (VT and Newton were done entirely with handguns.) Maybe Congress will thus muster the courage to do that.
September 25, 2017
#takeaknee--or not, whatever. I don't care. (America flag: good. Confederate flag: bad.)
You know how you feel about seeing the Confederate flag? That's how so many--probably a majority--of Americans feel about people who are disrespecting the American flag or the national anthem. This is not a win for liberals; like Jane Fonda, it illustrates how out of touch these elitist liberals are with regular Americans. It does, however, further show how bad--I mean, BAD--Trump is as President.
Trump was given a question, and he replied in his Trumpian fashion: fire the sonsofbitches who protest DURING the national anthem. This was not breaching the First Amendment, since you're not entitled to play for the NFL, regardless of race or political leanings. What is interesting, however, is how heavily subsidized the NFL is by the federal and local governments. (Research it.... Right!?!) In a roundabout way, the taxpayers are paying these wealthy jocks to protest America(?)
This isn't about BLM or resist or even racial inequity. The players, coaches, team owners, et al don't appreciate being told what to do by a man whom many probably didn't vote for. (Some of them, like Colin Kaepernick, didn't vote at all. Because he respect America so much?) The NFL ignored all the CTE, but would not stand by and let their employment policies be dictated by outsiders.
Trump again overestimated how much influence that he had--although, really, he has helped fortify his base by waging war with these rich team owners and their America-hating employees. He advanced the kneel movement more than the currently unemployed Kaepernick, who doesn't even have a job.
Trump was given a question, and he replied in his Trumpian fashion: fire the sonsofbitches who protest DURING the national anthem. This was not breaching the First Amendment, since you're not entitled to play for the NFL, regardless of race or political leanings. What is interesting, however, is how heavily subsidized the NFL is by the federal and local governments. (Research it.... Right!?!) In a roundabout way, the taxpayers are paying these wealthy jocks to protest America(?)
This isn't about BLM or resist or even racial inequity. The players, coaches, team owners, et al don't appreciate being told what to do by a man whom many probably didn't vote for. (Some of them, like Colin Kaepernick, didn't vote at all. Because he respect America so much?) The NFL ignored all the CTE, but would not stand by and let their employment policies be dictated by outsiders.
Trump again overestimated how much influence that he had--although, really, he has helped fortify his base by waging war with these rich team owners and their America-hating employees. He advanced the kneel movement more than the currently unemployed Kaepernick, who doesn't even have a job.
July 11, 2017
June 28, 2017
Looks like Kate Beckinsale's daughter has a new boyfriend--oh, wait.
"Oh, look, my bloomers be goin' down!"
I have mental images of Kate Beckinsale watching old episodes of Nickelodeon's "All That," researching her current boyfriend's prior (recent) work, which makes me laugh. She seems like a classy lady, and won't get Nick humor.
If their genders were reversed--it would still seem odd. Beckinsale looks ten years younger, and Rife looks a few years older. They might be enjoying each other's company, and he might be enjoying her money. But if Lily Mo Sheen ends up bringing home a 40-year-old man, you can't be angry now, Kate. That's totally the rule.
There are advantages to this couple. If there relationship ever hits a rough spot, she can always take his Xbox away.
When he's ready to have kids, she'll be dried up like jerky. When he goes thru his midlife crisis, she'll be dead. There's a reason why Ashton Kutcher left Demi Moore for Millennial Demi Moore, Mila Kunis: She could give him a normal life. Now they have averaged-sized children. Because Mila Kunis is a dwarf.
June 20, 2017
June 14, 2017
The Steve Scalise attempted assassination...
This was the one thing to take people's attention away from the Congressional Russian investigation of the Trump administration. Now only if government officials had the authority to take guns away from people--nah, never mind.
The shooter was apparently a small business owner targeting Republican Congressmen. Really, it's like if someone had tried to assassinate Nancy Pelosi with gay porn.
Shockingly, the attempted assassin had formerly felt the Bern, and was an active Bernie Sanders supporter. Again, the insane gunman was NOT a supporter of Donald Trump. We are all surprised. If this were a Trump supporter, leftwingers would be all over it. That this nut was a Sanders supporters, the left will say we shouldn't act too hasty in assigning judgement. Time will tell how bad things get with a Republican controlled Congress. This ended up being closer to a suicide by cop as an act of terrorism.
Citizen engagement is a wonderful thing. Still, perhaps we all need to calm the hell down with the "fascism" allegations, and better articulate what we are resisting.
The shooter was apparently a small business owner targeting Republican Congressmen. Really, it's like if someone had tried to assassinate Nancy Pelosi with gay porn.
Shockingly, the attempted assassin had formerly felt the Bern, and was an active Bernie Sanders supporter. Again, the insane gunman was NOT a supporter of Donald Trump. We are all surprised. If this were a Trump supporter, leftwingers would be all over it. That this nut was a Sanders supporters, the left will say we shouldn't act too hasty in assigning judgement. Time will tell how bad things get with a Republican controlled Congress. This ended up being closer to a suicide by cop as an act of terrorism.
Citizen engagement is a wonderful thing. Still, perhaps we all need to calm the hell down with the "fascism" allegations, and better articulate what we are resisting.
