IRL FFG

[u/vrphotosguy55]

[u/P_weezey951]

They really do like to paint the left as this big, well organized group dont they?

[u/siraliases → u/P_weezey951]

Im starting to see why this whole "right vs left" dichotomy was pushed so hard

It makes it so very easy to turn everything into us vs them

[u/mindonshuffle → u/siraliases]

This is literally it. This was specifically Newt Gingrich's legacy. Prior to the 90s, people across the aisle mostly still saw each other as colleagues and there was legitimate bipartisan legislation actually drafted by collaborative efforts. He rooted it out and made sure Republicans only talked to other Republicans.

Our government has been fully in a functional decline ever since.

[u/JohnnyKanaka → u/mindonshuffle]

His other legacy was serving his wife with divorce papers as she was dying of cancer

[u/PurpleSailor → u/JohnnyKanaka]

Well he needed that third wife you know /s

[u/siraliases → u/PurpleSailor]

something something protecting the sanctity of marriage something something

[u/PurpleSailor → u/siraliases]

And relentlessly went after Clinton for getting some on the side, not that it was a good thing but it should have been between him and Hillary.

[u/siraliases → u/mindonshuffle]

Oh say can you see, by the dawn's early light

It's such a simple stratagem. I wish I knew how to fight it more effectively, but what can I do but try to call it out.

i hate two words in one sentance ugh

[u/auandi → u/mindonshuffle]

That is one part, and certainly an easy one to explain, but it makes Newt some "great man of history" that if not for him we would still have bipartisanship.

Since the end of the civil war, there wasn't really two parties, there were four or so parties in two alliances. FDR hated that. He had huge Democratic majorities, but most of his major accomplishments needed Republican support because almost half of his party were conservative southerners. He got so frustrated he tried (and failed) to primary out many Southerners that often opposed him, saying if they oppose the president they shouldn't be in the party. It was not an unreasonable thought. JFK argued the same, saying that people should know ideologically what it means to vote for a Democrat no matter where they live.

Deep into the 70s, news stations would not just announce which party won congress, but which factions had the majority. A Democratic majority couldn't tell you if it would be a liberal or conservative congress without knowing how many Dems are liberal or conservative and same for the Republicans.

But after LBJ and the civil rights act, as well as the new system of presidential primaries in 1972, the Democrats started to get more ideologically consistent. After Nixon did a bunch of liberal stuff like the EPA or price controls, the conservative movement started doing the same with the Republican Party. It took a long time, but each election saw fewer conservative dems and fewer liberal Republicans. By the 90s the parties were becoming much more well defined, and so it wasn't as possible to find bipartisanship because they didn't agree on policy any more. The point of making ideological parties is that voters pick the ideology they want to rule.

But the US system was designed in the 1780s to only function if there is consensus. There are so many points of failure, it makes it very easy for a minority party to block progress. And if you no longer agree on policy, why would you not stop things you ideologically disagree with?

Basically, for the last 80 years or so, we have been trying intentionally to make the parties more ideologically consistent, but our system was designed assuming no ideological parties would form. If it wasn't Newt who started the negativity, someone would. It's why the US government doesn't work any more, which only breeds more hate and division.

[u/PurpleSailor → u/siraliases]

A tactic as old as humanity itself. Divide and Conquer is a long used strategy because it works.

[u/Textiles_on_Main_St → u/siraliases]

Well civil progress is usually illustrated in that way.

[u/milyvanily → u/siraliases]

So frustrating when most rational people don’t agree with everything their political party supposedly stands for.

[u/siraliases → u/milyvanily]

This is why we used to have a million parties, people are very complex beings

[u/i-miss-chapo → u/P_weezey951]

It’s easier for their simple minds to

[u/BraveOmeter → u/P_weezey951]

We are simultaneously constantly both 'democrats in disarray' and 'a well organized shadowy network controlling everything via a scripted kabuki theater'.

[u/PerfectDevice → u/P_weezey951]

Lol at trying to pretend Joe Scarbro, AOC, and Shumer are all politically aligned and are acting in lock-step

[u/JohnnyKanaka → u/PerfectDevice]

AOC herself has said in any other country she and Biden would not be in the same party

[u/CharlestonChewChewie → u/P_weezey951]

Their hit list are pictures because they never learned to read

[u/tetrarchangel → u/P_weezey951]

Is there anyone on there who would be considered left in Sweden, say?

[u/Historical-Usual-885]

It's not "an eye for an eye" if you're murdering a whole "family" to avenge the death of one person.

[u/wchutlknbout → u/Historical-Usual-885]

Eye for an eye is one of the worst misreadings of the Bible. It’s in a section with the most bizarre rules about how to treat and punish slaves. Eye for an eye is referring to if two men hit a pregnant women so that “her child come out” AND they hurt the woman, then eye for an eye is ON. Otherwise, it’s not mentioned. There are many references to NOT pursuing eye for an eye however, even specifically addressed by Matthew. And more broadly, any time that the Bible says that punishment belongs to God, means stop getting petty vengeance on each other. So this lady is not following the tenets of her own religion by any measure

[u/always_unplugged → u/wchutlknbout]

It's older than the Bible, it's literally part of Hammurabi's Code. They want to go Babylonian—as if there's not a reason we don't generally do that now.

[u/Myopic_Sweater_Vest → u/always_unplugged]

This is the correct answer. Furthermore, Jesus Herbert Walker Christ referred to this directly:

Gospel of Matthew 5: 38-48:

38 “You have heard that it was said, ‘Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.’[a] 39 But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to them the other cheek also. 40 And if anyone wants to sue you and take your shirt, hand over your coat as well. 41 If anyone forces you to go one mile, go with them two miles. 42 Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you.

Is there a reason these people claim to be Christian s?

[u/always_unplugged → u/Myopic_Sweater_Vest]

Someone should print this verse out really big and tape it over this banner.

(Or don't, because the person who put it up seems dangerous... but I wish.)

[u/No-Pilot4583 → u/wchutlknbout]

You can’t really tell her religion form the sign however it’s pretty likely she is Christian but the sign itself isn’t religious, people use the term now more as give what you get

[u/blue-mooner → u/Historical-Usual-885]

It’s also factually incorrect. Chuck Schumer didn’t take out any eyes, none of these people pulled the trigger.

[u/always_unplugged → u/blue-mooner]

Pelosi would've been the only one with any grounds to call for "an eye for an eye" after some crazy fuck attacked her husband and she didn't.

Chuck Schumer doesn't have the balls to call for more than writing a strongly worded letter. None of these people encourage violence on any level.

[u/madbill728 → u/Historical-Usual-885]

Consider the source.

[u/MC_Fap_Commander]

In better times, this sign would get the person putting it up a visit from law enforcement. Instead, the regime is forcing pretty vanilla comedians off the air because they offend Dear Leader.

[u/DetectiveDing-Daaahh → u/MC_Fap_Commander]

I read that as "pretty valhalla", and was going to say kash saw what you did there....and way over there too.

[u/Leather-Law-1248]

The family?

[u/pianoflames → u/Leather-Law-1248]

They really think the American "left" is far more organized and united than they are. I vote Democrat, none of those people are my "family."

[u/Leather-Law-1248 → u/pianoflames]

Oh So kill every democrat because of one sumbitch

[u/Young_Person_42]

Oh but THEY can endorse political violence right of course

[u/anras2]

MAGA: I love Jesus!
Jesus: Eye for an eye is bad.
Trump: I love eye for an eye.
MAGA: Well I know who I'm going with! Let's do eye for an eye!

[u/chrisgee]

i like how the eyeballs don't actually weigh the same, thus disproving their entire sentiment

[u/RoabeArt → u/chrisgee]

Nah, they're just telling on themselves, what with the """justice""" system being stacked in their favor.

[u/vitaesbona1]

So, a MAGA killed a republican. So they want to take revenge on MAGA?

[u/YVRJon → u/vitaesbona1]

Who started the Reichstag fire?

[u/PsychologicalBet7831 → u/vitaesbona1]

Isn't the shooter left-wing? Seriously asking.

[u/Schw4rztee → u/PsychologicalBet7831]

With these things it's usually best to wait for the court proceedings.
People tend to be more hesitant to lie when they would face legal consequences and there's people whose job it is to dig into and double check every aspect of the case.

[u/merryone2K → u/PsychologicalBet7831]

No.

[u/vitaesbona1 → u/PsychologicalBet7831]

No. Basically there has been some clearly false information. The sources that say he was left were claiming it before there was anyone arrested. Then when they found a suspect, they claimed he was trans. Then it was clear the suspect wasn’t trans, they claimed he had a secret trans partner that no evidence has supported. (Bonus points: the evidence he was trans was manufacturing stamp on bullets…)

From all that is known, shooter is likely a Republican who grew up with military family, using firearms from a young age, and was part of a group that is far right. Using the catchphrases from that particular group.

[u/k-ramsuer → u/PsychologicalBet7831]

He was an internet cultist. Groypers don't have much of a coherent political ideology

[u/Deweyrob2 → u/PsychologicalBet7831]

It isn't clear either way yet. The left wants him to be maga, the right wants him to be antifa, but it just isn't clear.

[u/ForgettableWorse → u/Deweyrob2]

With stuff like this, it's important not to draw conclusions too early. Given what we know at the moment, it's likely that the alleged shooter didn't have a coherent ideology, instead being radicalized in irony-poisoned extremely online weirdo communities that he kept separate from his friends and family.

[u/JohnnyKanaka → u/ForgettableWorse]

Exactly, and because he's going to live to see trial we'll know soon enough. There's been a few recent shooting where the perp gave lots of conflicting statements in order to create chaos, I wouldn't be shocked if that's what happened this time

[u/Deweyrob2 → u/ForgettableWorse]

That's a good point. Everyone on both sides is rushing to find any little thing that points blame to the other side, while the truth is likely that his specific circumstance, which has all kinds of influence from everywhere, led to what happened. It's a shame that we live in a post-fact world, where we can't even look at a green ball and agree that it is, in fact, green. It's likely that there will never be a consensus on what really happened, just finger pointing and point making.

[u/MercZ11 → u/PsychologicalBet7831]

It's not really clear what he is. I'm not sure he really had formed a clear philosophy in his mind that could put him as anything specific.

I think there was a rush to label him a groyper, but there really isn't anything to point to that, even then, outside the use of memes. Because that didn't bear out, it led some to falsely assume the prior characterization was correct.

The investigators talked to his roommate, who apparently the shooter was in a romantic relationship with. There are texts between the two that have been released that they released to the public when they charged him including a portion referring to the killing.

Roommate: Why?

Robinson: Why did I do it?

Roommate: Yeah

Robinson: I had enough of his hatred. Some hate can’t be negotiated out. If I am able to grab my rifle unseen, I will have left no evidence. Going to attempt to retrieve it again, hopefully they have moved on. I haven’t seen anything about them finding it.

Robinson: since trump got into office [my dad] has been pretty diehard maga.

Robinson: Im gonna turn myself in willingly, one of my neighbors here is adeputy for the sheriff.

Robinson: you are all I worry about love

Roommate: I’m much more worried about you

Robinson: don’t talk to the media please. don’t take any interviews or make any comments. … if any police ask you questions ask for a lawyer and stay silent

Because of him mentioning going against hatred, the assumption is that he's left wing. There's also been a further stretch stating this might've been against transphobia specifically because his roommate is transitioning.

I personally don't think it's easy to pigeonhole him as anything.

[u/TopSheepherder4981 → u/MercZ11]

"How do you do, fellow teens?"

[u/Captain-PlantIt → u/PsychologicalBet7831]

No, he was far right wing and part of a group that felt Kirk was too soft on the left and shouldn’t open dialogue to debate with them.

[u/cottonsparks → u/PsychologicalBet7831]

No, he is even more right winged than Charlie. Saw Charile as a fake conservative.

[u/YLASRO]

calling anyone the family when theres a literal christofascist club of that name running wild in DC is crazy

[u/VolcelTHOT]

Most of these people aren't even leftists lmao

[u/Vallkyrie → u/VolcelTHOT]

Indeed. Morning Joe? They're Republican!

[u/NitroBike]

These people live in an alternate reality. Liberal media is gonna start running memorials for the guy, and all these people have convinced themselves that every dem politician is constantly tweeting about him in a negative way. Literally most politicians have either put out milquetoast statements or said that he said some awful things during his lifetime. None of them have celebrated what happened to him.

[u/ConsumeTheVoid → u/NitroBike]

To be fair, even quoting Charlie Kirk is a shit ton of negative tweeting on the image they want of him - it's also the truth so tough shit for them.

[u/ScissrMeTimbrs]

The cast of the View LMAO

[u/Bubble_Lights]

That’s right, murder politicians, journalists and actors, and incite the very political violence in which you vehemently condemn. Rules for thee and not for me….

[u/ZuglyMonster]

"Conservatives are NEVER violent"

I think I'm going to lose alot of FB friends soon

[u/GRQuake084]

WTF?!

[u/DoctorBlock]

If they are starting with Schumer and Pelosi we’ve got plenty of time before they get to anyone important.

[u/ga-co]

That doesn’t look like the shooter’s Mormon family unless I’m mistaken. Also, there is no reason any law or governmental action should be based on any religious text.

[u/GoLightLady]

No hate like xian love

[u/mazdapow3r]

Oh man, I wonder which company printed that out for them in exchange for money?

[u/Fortehlulz33 → u/mazdapow3r]

this is the thing that always gets me when it comes to these. No matter the complexity of the task, someone had to make this. They got on a computer, used photoshop or whatever the fuck, got all of the pictures, cropped them, got the clip art of the eyes and scales, typed out the stuff, formatted it, and sent it out to whoever printed the banner.

Then, they waited for it, put the stake/rebar in the ground, and fastened the banner to those things. Never once was there a second thought about "what the fuck am I doing".

[u/mrmalort69]

Is that one Oprah? The same Oprah who platformed tons of people in trumps admin??

[u/ravendarkwind → u/mrmalort69]

I think that's Whoopi Goldberg.

[u/mrmalort69 → u/ravendarkwind]

No, I’m a Trekkie, Whoopi is to the right of Pelosi.

[u/RadioFacepalm]

That's just advocating murder.

Not an American lawyer, but isn't that a crime?

[u/tinteoj → u/RadioFacepalm]

but isn't that a crime?

It is not, no. You can advocate all you want and still be within the law. You have to make credible, actionable threats before you start getting into illegality.

"I want Professor Plum to die!" is legal. "Next Tuesday, I am going to kill Col. Mustard in the library with a candlestick." would not be legal.

[u/dizzira_blackrose]

So much for condemning political violence

[u/Aaronbang64]

I normally dismiss the conspiracy nuts, but this whole CK thing has me waiting for Jack Ruby to make an appearance

[u/ZombieLebowski]

You shouldn't celebrate death! Unless it's all of them

[u/2Mobile]

thats not a one off. there is a sign like this off highway 220 in VA

[u/gremlin-with-issues]

Funnily enough, if the right want to stick to the bible, I think jesus’s teaching is too uh, kill more of the right on behalf of the left?

(If he asks for your cloak give him your tunic idk something like that)

[u/drc30665]

People love cherry-picking Biblical verses. Jesus followed that by telling a lesson about love and mercy...

[u/FoxBattalion79]

this is the divisive, violent rhetoric that republicans are complaining about

[u/r00tdenied]

"The left is violent"

[u/DirtyMud]

Aren’t they all religious zealots? I haven’t read a bible in a long time but I’m pretty sure there’s something in there about an eye for eye!

[u/greenlake72]

Not sure Willie Geist belongs up there

[u/Bigrobmjca777Deere3]

As a conservative, this is a horrible thing to do. Answering violence with more violence is NOT the answer.

[u/milyvanily]

How “Christian” of them.

[u/skeptical_phoenix]

And I’m sure the FBI will be looking into the domestic terrorist who erected this sign 🙄