Board 8 > Politics Containment Topic 104: I Plead Hypothetical Future Executive Privilege

(+) Yeah! (+)

James T. Hodgkinson had a 2006 Domestic Battery case where a shotgun was brandished! He also volunteered on Bernie Sanders' presidential campaign.
---

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/donald-trump-is-making-europe-liberal-again/

If you want to get more obscure, the nationalist Finns Party underperformed its polls and lost a significant number of seats in the Finnish municipal elections in April, while the United Patriots, a coalition of nationalist parties, lost three seats in the Bulgarian parliamentary elections in March.

That's weird, I don't recall having heard anything about this from Vlado. Maybe it slipped his mind?
---

Crazies exist on both sides of the political spectrum. More news at 11.
---

lol at people thinking Ulti was actually leaving B8

This is horrible and a reminder that both sides should humble themselves. Crazies can belong to any faction and any group political or otherwise, and the constant tribalist discourse can have powerful consequences. It should be worrying that one of the first reactions to this is a thinly-veiled victorious sigh of relief from the conservatives as they watch the liberals crash and take responsibility for some crazy rando who went too deep into the rabbit hole. It would be exactly the same if the roles were reversed, btw.
---

GuessMyUserName posted...

how is he so incredibly stupid


.... and at the same time in charge of your country

His supporters relate to him well in that sense
---

UltimaterializerX posted...

Nanahara715 posted...

He's a 66 year old white man?

Yep, and he's all over social media saying he was going to destroy Trump and his supporters. We can directly blame leftist media for this one.

lol
---

Please don't quote him. Just say lulti and move on, thank you.
---

The shooting is fucking despicable. Hopefully everyone makes a speedy recovery.

Anyone who would be saying anything different than what they are now if the parties were reversed should probably just shut up.
---

Peace___Frog posted...

Imagine if Hillary had answered so many benghazi questions with "uh idk"

Didn't she answer like half her email.server questions with forms of I cannot recollect.
---

Jesus it is like you guys scummoned that shooter by talking about Bernie or Bust voters.
---

maybe it was the talk of hitting sessions with an anvil, but it's like clue and we got the wrong person and weapon
---

banananor posted...

i liked the suggestion i saw on reddit that the teams should have the game as usual, except mixing up their teams rosters as a sign of unity

I like this idea as well.
---

https://twitter.com/o_ema/status/875020626435735552

Rep. Nanette Diaz Barragan tells me that multiple Democratic members of the House have gotten calls saying "you guys are next."

The Reasonable Right
---

http://www.theonion.com/article/virginia-shooting-somehow-proves-what-every-single-56246
---

Peace___Frog posted...

https://twitter.com/o_ema/status/875020626435735552

Rep. Nanette Diaz Barragan tells me that multiple Democratic members of the House have gotten calls saying "you guys are next."

The Reasonable Right

Crazy old Democrat shoots people, Republicans deside to kill all Democrats. Pretty predictable.
---

Look, the shooting was terrible for a multitude of reasons, many of which involve the fact that being a Republican is not a crime, let alone worthy of the death penalty, and citizens are not judge, jury, and executioner.

(Though to be honest, "executioner" should be a job title done away with - the government shouldn't be in the business of revenge.)

That being said, it seems like Republicans have already decided Democrats' issue on the stance for them, as opposed to actually waiting to see their reactions. And from what I've seen, all reactions from Democrats are critical of the shooter, as opposed to the Republican decision that Democrats wholly support him.
---

BowserCuffs posted...

That being said, it seems like Republicans have already decided Democrats' issue on the stance for them, as opposed to actually waiting to see their reactions. And from what I've seen, all reactions from Democrats are critical of the shooter, as opposed to the Republican decision that Democrats wholly support him.

Republicans think that everyone reacts in the same way that they would.
---

Didn't a shooter literally ask the political beliefs of people and then shot Liberals like two months ago?

@Nelson_Mandela and @UltimaterializerX where were you chucklefucks then?

Not blaming it on all Conservatives, I can bet my life on that.
---

LapisLazuli posted...

Peace___Frog posted...

https://twitter.com/o_ema/status/875020626435735552

Rep. Nanette Diaz Barragan tells me that multiple Democratic members of the House have gotten calls saying "you guys are next."

The Reasonable Right

Crazy old Democrat shoots people, Republicans deside to kill all Democrats. Pretty predictable.

Fuck off
---

We can't judge all Democrats based off of one crazy old person, but it's ok to judge all republicans off of their crazies.
---

Samurai7 posted...

We can't judge all Democrats based off of one crazy old person, but it's ok to judge all republicans off of their crazies.

Nah, just the ones that defend their crazies.
---

http://www.kentucky.com/news/local/crime/article147344794.html

“A guy came in, banged something, a hatchet or an ax, on the table and said, ‘The day of reckoning has come,’” Reynolds said. “He asked somebody what their political affiliation was, they said ‘Republican,’ and the guy said, ‘You are safe.’

People blaming one crazy on an entire group are despicable human beings.
---

Kenri posted...

http://www.theonion.com/article/virginia-shooting-somehow-proves-what-every-single-56246

Painfully accurate.
---

Well at least these crazies aren't targeting registered independents.
---

http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/337806-russia-sanctions-deal-clears-key-senate-hurdle

97-2! Good job Senate!
---

Rand Paul and Mike Lee are the two in case anyone was wondering.
---

Who's the 3.
---

https://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=115&session=1&vote=00144

Looks like the non-voter was Chris Van Hollen (D-MD)

Edit: Tweet on why he didn't vote. Apparently, kidney stones

https://twitter.com/ChrisVanHollen/status/875099626751369216?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Etweet
---

US Citizens, 1776: hey maybe its okay to shoot at the gov if they are not representing our voices whatsoever

US Citizens, 2017: i love the founding fathers and view them as justified and even though studies suggest regular american citizens have literally no say or impact in how the government does its business, and almost universally hate its out of touch legislative and executive branches, see these situations as different and condemn all violence except those caused by the US military and its allies

tbf we'd probably be a lot better off if we were still part of Britain so I can see the argument
---

https://twitter.com/NateSilver538/status/875112655836643328
---

Unknown_voter posted...

US Citizens, 1776: hey maybe its okay to shoot at the gov if they are not representing our voices whatsoever

US Citizens, 2017: i love the founding fathers and view them as justified and even though studies suggest regular american citizens have literally no say or impact in how the government does its business, and almost universally hate its out of touch legislative and executive branches, see these situations as different and condemn all violence except those caused by the US military and its allies

This is a terrible take
---

https://twitter.com/SethAbramson/status/875104970697265155

Mueller is investigating Trump for obstruction: https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/special-counsel-is-investigating-trump-for-possible-obstruction-of-justice/2017/06/14/9ce02506-5131-11e7-b064-828ba60fbb98_story.html
---

Unknown_voter posted...

US Citizens, 1776: hey maybe its okay to shoot at the gov if they are not representing our voices whatsoever

US Citizens, 2017: i love the founding fathers and view them as justified and even though studies suggest regular american citizens have literally no say or impact in how the government does its business, and almost universally hate its out of touch legislative and executive branches, see these situations as different and condemn all violence except those caused by the US military and its allies

What a terrible post. No wonder you hid behind an alt.
---

Unknown_voter posted...

US Citizens, 1776: hey maybe its okay to shoot at the gov if they are not representing our voices whatsoever

US Citizens, 2017: i love the founding fathers and view them as justified and even though studies suggest regular american citizens have literally no say or impact in how the government does its business, and almost universally hate its out of touch legislative and executive branches, see these situations as different and condemn all violence except those caused by the US military and its allies

I'm going to ignore your pretend point and point out that right to bear arms is stupid anyway, since weapons technology has advanced way too far for it's intended purpose to be realistically possible. "Hah, we don't like you, government, Imma shoot you with this rifle!" "Okay, meet my drones."
---

I agree the right to bear arms is stupid. I do not agree with any violence ever. Post was just making fun of how inconsistent Americans views on violence and its just and unjust applications are.

Question for the Americans

Under the letter of the law would the right to bare arms technically include access to WMDs?
---

Skyridge87 posted...

https://twitter.com/SethAbramson/status/875104970697265155

This is a good take
---

charmander6000 posted...

Question for the Americans

Under the letter of the law would the right to bare arms technically include access to WMDs?

Nah. The law is clearly meant for defense, which is why things like explosives and machine guns are still illegal.
---

charmander6000 posted...

Question for the Americans

Under the letter of the law would the right to bare arms technically include access to WMDs?

Only in Colorado
---

Apparently it was Rand Paul's staffer that sent out that 2nd amendment tweet and the staffer was quoting Judge Napolitano.

http://www.mediaite.com/online/a-year-ago-rand-paul-tweeted-that-2nd-amendment-exists-to-shoot-at-the-government/
---

Kenri posted...

tbf we'd probably be a lot better off if we were still part of Britain so I can see the argument

....Yeah I can't agree with that one.
---

charmander6000 posted...

Question for the Americans

Under the letter of the law would the right to bare arms technically include access to WMDs?

Under the actual letter of the law, there is no limit.

The Second Amendment explicitly says so, and it has not been constitutionally amended, so theoretically it should be the final word on the matter.

I used to get tripped up on the "well-regulated militia" part until I actually sat down and parsed the text of the sentence that makes up the Amendment.

That's my objective take.
---

Although it does use capital-A "Arms" so maybe the founders foresaw the Switch game
---

LordoftheMorons posted...

Mueller is investigating Trump for obstruction: https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/special-counsel-is-investigating-trump-for-possible-obstruction-of-justice/2017/06/14/9ce02506-5131-11e7-b064-828ba60fbb98_story.html

---

charmander6000 posted...

Question for the Americans

Under the letter of the law would the right to bare arms technically include access to WMDs?

Answer: nobody actually knows what the 2nd Amendment means because it's A) incredibly vague and B) written in English that sounds like it's been through 10 rounds of Google translate.

Most plausible explanation is that it was meant to allow slave patrols to be armed (without explicitly saying so). So I guess if we needed to nuke some runaway slaves, yeah the 2nd amendment would cover that.

...does this answer the question
---

Kenri posted...

Most plausible explanation is that it was meant to allow slave patrols to be armed (without explicitly saying so). So I guess if we needed to nuke some runaway slaves, yeah the 2nd amendment would cover that.

Now this is a theory.
---

Or, you know, they might have just fended off an empire in large part due to militias.

Not all the founding fathers had slaves, but they were all part of the American Revolution.
---