I came across this is little story today, it's not breaking news. I suspect that a member of the housekeeping staff knows something about the bomb threat that required the sweep for weapons.
According to police in Secaucus, the bomb threat — which later was determined to be bogus — was called in to Hudson Regional Hospital on July 18. During a search, bomb detection dogs led investigators to an unlocked office closet containing dozens of firearms.
Among the weapons were 11 handguns and 27 rifles or shotguns, according to police. The closet also contained a .45 caliber semi-automatic rifle with a high-capacity magazine that was determined to be an assault rifle, and a 14-round high-capacity handgun magazine.
The arrested the guy the next day.
What the heck do you think this guy was doing? It sounds very ominous that he was keeping those weapons there.
I think right wing rhetoric and animus centered on Pelosi is the problem. I think republican House candidates running against Pelosi, with animus, rather than running against their actual opponents is the problem.
[...]
And this as different than left wing animus centered on Republican candidates? Or are you suggesting that this is unique amongst Republicans?
It might be different in Alaska, but where I am this is common practice among both parties. I think I have only seen two candidates that haven't engaged in this behavior: one Democrat and one Republican running for the North Carolina House and Senate respectively.
2 hours ago, toomuchbaloney said:
[...]
I think that the distinctly republican notion that violence may be necessary to forward conservative political thinking in this country is the problem.
[...]
Are you suggesting that this is a wide spread practice? And one endorsed by the Republican party?
2 hours ago, toomuchbaloney said:
[...]
I also think that we know for certain that the attacker is far down that right wing rabbit hole and that's why he was looking to harm the SOTH. The fellow's social media finger print was a dead giveaway.
And I just think he's down the rabbit hole. It is my opinion, based on his widely reported history (1, 2, 3, 4) of following fringe and conspiracy theories, that he tended to follow the theory du jour. Regarding his social media posting, all that I've read states that they have all been taken down. Perhaps a detailed history will come to light if these, and his manifesto are released.
Specializes in NICU, PICU, Transport, L&D, Hospice.
22 minutes ago, chare said:
And this as different than left wing animus centered on Republican candidates? Or are you suggesting that this is unique amongst Republicans?
It might be different in Alaska, but where I am this is common practice among both parties. I think I have only seen two candidates that haven't engaged in this behavior: one Democrat and one Republican running for the North Carolina House and Senate respectively.
Are you suggesting that this is a wide spread practice? And one endorsed by the Republican party?
And I just think he's down the rabbit hole. It is my opinion, based on his widely reported history (1, 2, 3, 4) of following fringe and conspiracy theories, that he tended to follow the theory du jour. Regarding his social media posting, all that I've read states that they have all been taken down. Perhaps a detailed history will come to light if these, and his manifesto are released.
I guess we'll see...
Yeah, I think that violent rhetoric is rampant among Trump influenced republican politicians. No I don't hear similar rhetoric from liberals.
The rabbit hole this fellow crawled down was conservative, according to comments from his family.
Of course he was mentally ill, well people don't believe lies or conspiracy theories and then believe that they need to take violent action against a liberal politician because of the lies and conspiracy theories.
The question that is unanswered is who is radicalizing those who threaten violence related to politics or elections.
remember when the threats really became noticeable?
Quote
They are part of a national phenomenon. America’s federal elections are administered by state and local officials. But the threateners are targeting workers far from home: Seven of the nine harassed officials in other states. Some targeted election officials in states where Trump lost by substantial margins, such as Colorado – or even Vermont, where Biden won by 35 percentage points.
“These people firmly believe in the ‘Big Lie’ that the former president legitimately won the election,” said Chris Krebs, who ran the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency at the Department of Homeland Security. Krebs was fired by Trump last year for declaring that the 2020 election had been conducted fairly. By terrorizing election officials, he said, they’re effectively acting as Trump’s “foot soldiers.”
But I suppose that conservatives in general are hoping that this is a phenomenon of violent intentions that is widespread across the political spectrum with equal expression among both liberal and conservative members of our culture in similar numbers.
Eh, he started this in August. He's not up for re election right now. Even if he was, or if it's to help others in midterms, it would only help if independents also think it's a good idea. It seems CNN is only reporting on it because the feds are making a stink of it. Not because he's seeking publicity over it.
And, it's the Arizona border, not Montana. Big difference!
Yes. The numbers are staggering.
To be fair CNN has long reported about gaps on the border. Surely the Governor knew about the gaps. I consider August mid term time. The comment about Montana was snark in that people whose lives aren't affected put a lot of concern in the border. I know people that live in Arizona and the border town of El Paso and the border doesn't seem to affect them that much in their day to day lives.
Governors potentially breaking the law is worthy to be reported even if if the intention is to help their state. In my opinion.
I don't have a problem with him wanting to fill the gaps with box cars. Just do it legally.
I'm baffled it's so important to Republican voters far away from the border. It a concern to me but down the list.
To be fair CNN has long reported about gaps on the border. Surely the Governor knew about the gaps. I consider August mid term time. The comment about Montana was snark in that people whose lives aren't affected put a lot of concern in the border. I know people that live in Arizona and the border town of El Paso and the border doesn't seem to affect them that much in their day to day lives.
Governors potentially breaking the law is worthy to be reported even if if the intention is to help their state. In my opinion.
I don't have a problem with him wanting to fill the gaps with box cars. Just do it legally.
I'm baffled it's so important to Republican voters far away from the border. It a concern to me but down the list.
I don't want to belittle it either
It was kinda wierd you said Montana, because that's where I happen to be at this moment.
Yes, I noticed the other today you said something like "immigration doesn't effect many of us in our day to day lives".
You said it is a concern to you, but way down the list. I guess to understand why it's not a bigger concern, I'm curious as to why it's any kinda concern at all?
And this as different than left wing animus centered on Republican candidates? Or are you suggesting that this is unique amongst Republicans?
It might be different in Alaska, but where I am this is common practice among both parties. I think I have only seen two candidates that haven't engaged in this behavior: one Democrat and one Republican running for the North Carolina House and Senate respectively.
Are you suggesting that this is a wide spread practice? And one endorsed by the Republican party?
And I just think he's down the rabbit hole. It is my opinion, based on his widely reported history (1, 2, 3, 4) of following fringe and conspiracy theories, that he tended to follow the theory du jour. Regarding his social media posting, all that I've read states that they have all been taken down. Perhaps a detailed history will come to light if these, and his manifesto are released.
This guy had many issues. And to use him as an example of conservatives being dangerous is lunacy. A MSNBC commentator even said that the attack was a continuation of Jan 6.
I went back to the blue side, and went to the thread about the Bernie Bro shooting up the GOP baseball practice.
I didn't read every one of the 120 posts, but didn't see any talk of that guy's political ideology.
The closest I saw was one or two posts about how violence is bad from either side.
A vast majority of the discussion was about gun control.
Former President Barack Obama joked about Herschel Walker, the GOP nominee for a U.S. Senate seat in Georgia, on Friday with a “thought experiment” that highlighted the Republican candidate’s lack of experience for the political role.
What did you find offensive or objectionable about what Obama said?
You, and many on the left, don't hesitate to point out when Mr. Trump's behavior is inappropriate and less than presidential. Which I have no problem with. I was curious as to whether you held Democrat past presidents to the same standard.
As you seem to be able to justify this behavior in a sitting president, it doesn't surprise me that you find it acceptable in a former president.
You, and many on the left, don't hesitate to point out when Mr. Trump's behavior is inappropriate and less than presidential. Which I have no problem with. I was curious as to whether you held Democrat past presidents to the same standard.
As you seem to be able to justify this behavior in a sitting president, it doesn't surprise me that you find it acceptable in a former president.
What did Obama say that was offensive? Or are you reacting to the headline? It seems to me that serving as one of 100 senators would be best performed by someone with background in the law or political science. Or at least someone who acknowledges past behavior instead of lying about it.
Specializes in NICU, PICU, Transport, L&D, Hospice.
26 minutes ago, chare said:
You, and many on the left, don't hesitate to point out when Mr. Trump's behavior is inappropriate and less than presidential. Which I have no problem with. I was curious as to whether you held Democrat past presidents to the same standard.
As you seem to be able to justify this behavior in a sitting president, it doesn't surprise me that you find it acceptable in a former president.
What behavior? You haven't specified what he said or did that is inappropriate for a former president? I watched the entire speech. I read the article that you offered. I'm asking you to clarify the language or behavior, specifically, that you want to compare to Trump's or hold up for criticism.
Specializes in NICU, PICU, Transport, L&D, Hospice.
3 hours ago, Beerman said:
This guy had many issues. And to use him as an example of conservatives being dangerous is lunacy. A MSNBC commentator even said that the attack was a continuation of Jan 6.
I went back to the blue side, and went to the thread about the Bernie Bro shooting up the GOP baseball practice.
I didn't read every one of the 120 posts, but didn't see any talk of that guy's political ideology.
The closest I saw was one or two posts about how violence is bad from either side.
A vast majority of the discussion was about gun control.
Conservative rhetoric is increasingly dangerous and leaning toward violence. This current fellow is just another example of an unwell person acting out because of the rhetoric. He was radicalized. What voices radicalized him? Why was Pelosi his target?
chare
4,372 Posts
And this as different than left wing animus centered on Republican candidates? Or are you suggesting that this is unique amongst Republicans?
It might be different in Alaska, but where I am this is common practice among both parties. I think I have only seen two candidates that haven't engaged in this behavior: one Democrat and one Republican running for the North Carolina House and Senate respectively.
Are you suggesting that this is a wide spread practice? And one endorsed by the Republican party?
And I just think he's down the rabbit hole. It is my opinion, based on his widely reported history (1, 2, 3, 4) of following fringe and conspiracy theories, that he tended to follow the theory du jour. Regarding his social media posting, all that I've read states that they have all been taken down. Perhaps a detailed history will come to light if these, and his manifesto are released.