Two National Guardsmen shot in DC altercation
-
The shooter does so much damage to so many - especially his own people - and at the same time harms whatever cause he thinks he was supporting.
@kluurs said in Two National Guardsmen shot in DC altercation:
The shooter does so much damage to so many - especially his own people - and at the same time harms whatever cause he thinks he was supporting.
The damage to his own people is the a feature, not a bug. That damage continues the cycle.
-
When one votes, one votes for the entire basket of consequences. It's easy to take pot shots at the downsides of the basket, while never comparing against the other basket. In this case, effectively open borders and various railings against xenophobia to support them.
Education is extremely important.
-
I need you guys to be more specific. He was a lone shooter, they say. Why 500 more troops? Is there a heightened security need? Or is he just making a point to a guy who’s sitting in hospital/jail?
“In the 25 years that I served in the United States Congress, Republicans never, ever, one time agreed on what a health care proposal should look like. Not once.”
- Former Speaker of the House John Boehner
-
When one votes, one votes for the entire basket of consequences. It's easy to take pot shots at the downsides of the basket, while never comparing against the other basket. In this case, effectively open borders and various railings against xenophobia to support them.
@Horace said in Two National Guardsmen shot in DC altercation:
When one votes, one votes for the entire basket of consequences.
Ok, tariff boy.
-
@Horace said in Two National Guardsmen shot in DC altercation:
When one votes, one votes for the entire basket of consequences.
Ok, tariff boy.
@jon-nyc said in Two National Guardsmen shot in DC altercation:
@Horace said in Two National Guardsmen shot in DC altercation:
When one votes, one votes for the entire basket of consequences.
Ok, tariff boy.
Sure, potshot boy.
-
We don't know enough about the shooter to say whether or not this had anything to do with the NG in DC. More than likely it's just another Muslim nutter who was just as likely to shoot a civilian or a metro cop. But I suppose it's as good an excuse as any to pin it on Trump. It clearly doesn't take much.
"You cannot subsidize irresponsibility and expect people to become more responsible." — Thomas Sowell
-
I need you guys to be more specific. He was a lone shooter, they say. Why 500 more troops? Is there a heightened security need? Or is he just making a point to a guy who’s sitting in hospital/jail?
@jon-nyc said in Two National Guardsmen shot in DC altercation:
I need you guys to be more specific. He was a lone shooter, they say. Why 500 more troops? Is there a heightened security need? Or is he just making a point to a guy who’s sitting in hospital/jail?
It's a meaningless show of force, because of course Trump would push back with a meaningless show of force. But please do continue to scratch your head with performative puzzlement.
-
Here’s why it makes no sense.
To the extent that there’s a heightened security risk, it would be copycats. (Perhaps especially Islamic copycats).
All adding 500 troops would do in that case is enrich the target environment. At the end of the day, anyone willing to trade his life for that of a guardsman or two can do so, barring some bad luck.
-
We don't know enough about the shooter to say whether or not this had anything to do with the NG in DC. More than likely it's just another Muslim nutter who was just as likely to shoot a civilian or a metro cop. But I suppose it's as good an excuse as any to pin it on Trump. It clearly doesn't take much.
-
Given your track record, you can't even say that with a straight face.
"You cannot subsidize irresponsibility and expect people to become more responsible." — Thomas Sowell
-
@LuFins-Dad said in Two National Guardsmen shot in DC altercation:
No, strictly and only on one level. The guy that decided to ambush two soldiers.
Saying otherwise is akin to blaming the short skirt the girl was wearing for what happened in the alley…
No, having the national guard in DC in the first place is objectively unnecessary. Being shot is as well, of course. Both are not to blame but both are certainly unnecessary.
And yes. If your a girl wearing a short skirt in an alley, it’s foolish. Not guilty, but foolish.
@89th said in Two National Guardsmen shot in DC altercation:
@LuFins-Dad said in Two National Guardsmen shot in DC altercation:
No, strictly and only on one level. The guy that decided to ambush two soldiers.
Saying otherwise is akin to blaming the short skirt the girl was wearing for what happened in the alley…
No, having the national guard in DC in the first place is objectively unnecessary. Being shot is as well, of course. Both are not to blame but both are certainly unnecessary.
If she was a little more frumpy, it never would have happened.
This is the most inane argument that I have ever seen.
-
@Mik said in Two National Guardsmen shot in DC altercation:
Given your track record, you can't even say that with a straight face.
People will believe their own BS. Those who are most invested in their own BS, will also be most invested in propagating their BS to everybody who will listen. Say, how's the wallpaper on TNCR over the past year? Got a faint sniff of "jon infecting the world with his BS".
-
@Mik said in Two National Guardsmen shot in DC altercation:
Given your track record, you can't even say that with a straight face.
This smells of TDSDS. Show me where I pinned this on Trump. Highlight the line.
-
@Mik said in Two National Guardsmen shot in DC altercation:
Given your track record, you can't even say that with a straight face.
This smells of TDSDS. Show me where I pinned this on Trump. Highlight the line.
@jon-nyc said in Two National Guardsmen shot in DC altercation:
@Mik said in Two National Guardsmen shot in DC altercation:
Given your track record, you can't even say that with a straight face.
This smells of TDSDS. Show me where I pinned this on Trump. Highlight the line.
Nobody cares as much about the potential literal readings of your words as you do. As I've explained previously, you're happy to imply broadly, and then retreat to literal when you get pushback in your unpreferred direction. If anybody read your post as a blaming of Trump, you would get an endorphin rush. if anybody pushes back against a blaming of Trump, you get literal. This is known as motte and bailey, but you already know that fallacy. Not that it prevents you from employing it whenever it makes opportunistic rhetorical sense to do so.
