Just another drawback of a two party, right and far right, system. Of course "most USAians" who want to prevent the endemic gun killings could get involved in the party's nomination systems. If they really cared enough.
Yeah, maybe. I haven't looked it up, but I suspect that while a majority of Americans support tighter gun control, it's not an overwhelming majority. And probably heavily weighted toward Democrats, with a majority of Republicans being more in favor of guns. Independents probably favor control, but aren't going to be significantly involved in party nominations. So Republicans will continue to nominate gun advocates and thanks to the constitution and gerrymandering, control most states and have disproportionate influence in the US Senate.
And kids will continue to be shot. Two big dots right next to each other that some people just refuse to join.
It's been repeatedly said that, presented with policies without being told what party they come from, the US electorate prefer Democratic Party policies like gun control, universal healthcare, progressive taxation and the like.
So I guess we're just not talking about Phoenix Ikner then?
FSU shooting suspect's complex past comes to light – yet motive remains a mystery
In recent years, Phoenix Ikner became known for far-right, white supremacist rhetoric, classmates said. It’s unclear if that had any tie to the violence.www.nbcnews.com
www.kplctv.com
That white supremacists aren't a threat.
Most USAians, over 85%, think that abortion should be legal in all or some circumstances. Yet their elected representatives are busy banning it.
Why did you quote my post? There seems to be no connection.
You post continued the discussion regarding the differences between what USAians want from the politicians and what they vote for.
My comment was regarding shootings - the topic of the thread. And follows from the claim that most USAians want to prevent the endemic gun killings.
Not bad for a Monday!
Not even hiding it.
But not interested in the solution to these mass killings.
That would be outside the scope of this discussion, I'd say. Let's first get a clear picture of what's actually happening. Sceptics shouldn't be afraid of uncomfortable truths.
You're not "telling the truth". At best, you're just reporting some statistics that happen to tell a narrative you're invested in.
You've had a clear picture for decades, the " uncomfortable truth" is that the USA has a terrible and horrific issue caused by lack of effective gun control.
They mean that most mass shootings are committed by black people, not white people as the current left-wing narrative goes.
Good question, next question.
This is one of those shootings we don't really talk about – there were no white supremacists involved so it doesn't matter as much, for some reason.
The story doesn't say that the shooters were black, either. It doesn't say anything at all about who they are. How do you know there were no white supremacists involved?
