Donald Trump Jr likes Florida Shooting Conspiracy Tweets.

[szechuan]

This is just getting beyond Disgusting.

Donald Trump Jr. has "liked" two tweets pushing conspiracy theories about a Parkland, Fla., high school shooting survivor and his former FBI agent father.
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/do...rticle/2649515

[PACOX]

Of course he did, his father is the king of conspiracy theories.

[Dacien]

I think there's a big difference between claiming there are "crisis actors", and claiming that the son of a retired FBI agent might not be the most impartial advocate, considering the flak the FBI is catching for letting the ball drop on "following protocol", as they put it, with regards to leads on the shooter.

Not that I advocate for either. But this would be a much different thing if Don Jr. were liking tweets about "crisis actors", let's just say. And it doesn't help that he's liking a tweet referencing an article that uses the term "deep state" so loosely. If you want to make an argument about Obama holdovers engaging in acts to stymie Trump, you'd better have some evidence, not implied statements of fact.

But I also think some of this might come from the emotional argument that gets made after these shootings. In this case, it's trotting out children to plead for action on gun control. David Hogg isn't the only one. They also had Junior Cameron Kasky on to plead along the same lines. And CNN has a huge special tomorrow night called, "Stand Up: The Students of Stoneman Douglas Demand Action", with more children involved.

A few months ago, Jimmy Kimmel was the emotional argumentator in the Las Vegas shooting. It provokes a response to see the argument not being based on facts and data, but the emotional question, "Look at these innocent kids pleading for gun control. Won't you help them?"

All that said, the right should stick to debunking these emotion-based tactics (which they do very well), without resorting to accusations that can't be proven or flat-out conspiracy theories.

[NYC17]

I think there's a big difference between claiming there are "crisis actors", and claiming that the son of an FBI agent might not be the most impartial advocate, considering the flak the FBI is catching for letting the ball drop on "following protocol", as they put it, with regards to leads on the shooter.

Not that I advocate for either. But this would be a much different thing if Don Jr. were liking tweets about "crisis actors", let's just say. And it doesn't help that he's liking a tweet referencing an article that uses the term "deep state" so loosely. If you want to make an argument about Obama holdovers engaging in acts to stymie Trump, you'd better have some evidence, not implied statements of fact.

But I also think some of it might come from the emotional argument that gets made after these shootings. In this case, it's trotting out children to plead for action on gun control. David Hogg isn't the only one. They also had Junior Cameron Kasky on to plead along the same lines. And CNN has a huge special tomorrow night called, "Stand Up: The Students of Stoneman Douglas Demand Action", with more children involved.

A few months ago, Jimmy Kimmel was the emotional argumentator in the Las Vegas shooting. It provokes a response to see the argument not being based on facts and data, but the emotional question, "Look at these innocent kids pleading for gun control. Won't you help them?"

All that said, the right should stick to debunking these emotion-based tactics (which they do very well), without resorting to accusations that can't be proven or flat-out conspiracy theories.

YEA!

Who the hell do these victims think they are, speaking out with passion, anger, and sometimes rage in response to being shot at and watching their classmates be killed?

"Too emotional"? Go Dacien. Go. Play.

[Dacien]

YEA!

Who the hell do these victims think they are, speaking out with passion, anger, and sometimes rage in response to being shot at and watching their classmates be killed?

"Too emotional"? Go Dacien. Go. Play.

I think they're being used as political tools if you ask me. I understand the frustration and anger and hurt they're probably feeling, but for CNN to have interviews with them for going on a week now advocating for gun control is a bit beyond the pale.

You're not going to see any of these children on CNN advocating for arming teachers, for example. It's not about giving a voice to children in pain, it's about giving a voice to children that advocate for the preferred policy prescription. and it's troublesome to say the least.

[szechuan]

I think they're being used as political tools if you ask me. I understand the frustration and anger and hurt they're probably feeling, but for CNN to have interviews with them for going on a week now advocating for gun control is a bit beyond the pale.

You're not going to see any of these children on CNN advocating for arming teachers, for example. It's not about giving a voice to children in pain, it's about giving a voice to children that advocate for the preferred policy prescription. and it's troublesome to say the least.

Adults get used as Political Tools too. Sorry but it is giving a voice to children. If you even listened to them speak then you would know what they want. Instead Politicians have been ignoring them.

[Dacien]

Adults get used as Political Tools too. Sorry but it is giving a voice to children. If you even listened to them speak then you would know what they want.

But we're still using it as an emotional argument, aren't we? We're having on kids who started a gun control movement to talk about the shooting they have a connection to, to talk about the impact it has had on them and their friends, the pain it's caused, their anger, and so forth. The intent is to hopefully shift viewers' opinions based not on data and detailed analysis, but on the emotional argument that this was a painful event, let's crack down on guns like these particularly innocent victims are asking for.

[szechuan]

But we're still using it as an emotional argument, aren't we? We're having on kids who started a gun control movement to talk about the shooting they have a connection to, to talk about the impact it has had on them and their friends, the pain it's caused, their anger, and so forth. The intent is to hopefully shift viewers' opinions based not on data and detailed analysis, but on the emotional argument that this was a painful event, let's crack down on guns like these particularly innocent victims are asking for.

No, it's not a movement based on Emotion. It is a problem. School Shootings are now Normalized and already in 2018 we had a Kid Who Shot Himself in the face today and one of the worst school shootings, combined with a few months ago where there was a Vegas Shooter.

It's about Gun Control and it does need to be tackled.

Enough is enough.

The intent is to hopefully shift viewers' opinions based not on data and detailed analysis, but on the emotional argument that this was a painful event, let's crack down on guns like these particularly innocent victims are asking for.

Statistical Analysis don't make me laugh (because if that ever mattered we would have Universal healthcare). If you want Statistical Analysis and Gun Violence down you need Good Gun Control Laws.

[Dacien]

Well, it's devolving into a gun control debate, and I had a hand in that, but this isn't the proper thread for it.

[NYC17]

I think they're being used as political tools if you ask me. I understand the frustration and anger and hurt they're probably feeling, but for CNN to have interviews with them for going on a week now advocating for gun control is a bit beyond the pale.

You're not going to see any of these children on CNN advocating for arming teachers, for example. It's not about giving a voice to children in pain, it's about giving a voice to children that advocate for the preferred policy prescription. and it's troublesome to say the least.

I think you need it to be that because you have no other choice but to diminish it. Listening to them, learning from them, and considering their experience seems to be just a bit too much for you. You don't get to use the tired, lame ass shtick to counter their arguments that is used every other time, so dismissing them as patsies is your only option.

It's about none of the nonsense you listed, and thank god it isn't. It's about listening to the people who have the most to lose; their lives.

In a fucking school.

[Dacien]

I think you need it to be that because you have no other choice but to diminish it. Listening to them, learning from them, and considering their experience seems to be just a bit too much for you. You don't get to use the tired, lame ass shtick to counter their arguments that is used every other time, so dismissing them as patsies is your only option.

It's about none of the nonsense you listed, and thank god it isn't. It's about listening to the people who have the most to lose; their lives.

In a fucking school.

I'll wait patiently for CNN to give air time to a hurting Parkland student advocating for arming teachers or speaking about his pain but who believes strongly in the Second Amendment.

And I'm not even advocating for or against arming teachers, I'd just like to illustrate that there's a motive here beyond just giving a voice to children affected by a school shooting.

- - - Updated - - -

How does one get to this point? Where kids are fucking murdered and this is your response.

It's not hard to see what these media outlets are doing. They're using the pain and suffering of these children who agree with them on gun control to push for gun control. It's pretty disturbing. And I think that plays a part in some of these dirty attacks against the kids themselves, which Don Jr. waded into for some stupid reason.

I'm trying to roll this back on topic.

[szechuan]

I'll wait patiently for CNN to give air time to a hurting Parkland student advocating for arming teachers or speaking about his pain but who believes strongly in the Second Amendment.

are you suggesting that CNN is silencing kids voices? explain. Because they have access to the internet easily these days and are able to contact other news networks if they wanted to.

It's not hard to see what these media outlets are doing. They're using the pain and suffering of these children who agree with them on gun control to push for gun control. It's pretty disturbing.

You know what's even more disturbing? Not doing anything about it and not listening to the Teens Involved on the matter.

[NYC17]

I'll wait patiently for CNN to give air time to a hurting Parkland student advocating for arming teachers or speaking about his pain but who believes strongly in the Second Amendment.

You can wait all you want. It doesn't make your shtick any less tired. And since you couldn't address, or in any way counter, the idea of you needing to diminish it, it doesn't exactly seem like fairness and honesty is what you're looking for.

Feel free to spare me the indignation. I know you'll need it for the red herring you've created.

[Dacien]

are you suggesting that CNN is silencing kids voices? explain. Because they have access to the internet easily these days and are able to contact other news networks if they wanted to. If the Kids involved wanted to talk about they want more guns in schools let me know.

I'll give a shoutout to MSNBC for having on a kid who didn't have good things to say about gun control.

But we shouldn't even be playing this game. We shouldn't be playing it. We shouldn't be trotting out 17-year-old kids to ask their opinion on national gun policy because they happened to be involved in a shooting. If you want to separate out their opinions on gun control and just have them on to talk about their experience, that's one thing, but politicizing the pain of children for political gain is disgusting to watch.

[szechuan]

I'll give a shoutout to MSNBC for having on a kid who didn't have good things to say about gun control.

But we shouldn't even be playing this game. We shouldn't be playing it. We shouldn't be trotting out 17-year-old kids to ask their opinion on national gun policy because they happened to be involved in a shooting. If you want to separate out their opinions on gun control and just have them on to talk about their experience, that's one thing, but politicizing the pain of children for political gain is disgusting to watch.

Playing what game? That recognizing that this is an issue that needs to be tackled?

The Teens Politicized it Themselves.

We shouldn't be trotting out 17-year-old kids to ask their opinion on national gun policy because they happened to be involved in a shooting.

You can't be serious, you need to ask kids Political questions. Especially 17 year olds.
You need to listen to them especially if they have some sound ideas, this is also one of the ways to get them involved in the Political Process to Change Things.

[Elegiac]

I think they're being used as political tools if you ask me.

Nobody asked you to be a fundamentally indecent human being by dismissing firearm massacres as 'acceptable losses'.

[Dacien]

Playing what game? That recognizing that this is an issue that needs to be tackled?

The Teens Politicized it Themselves.

You can't be serious, the kids need to be asked the Hard Questions.

But it's an emotional argument. The basis for their authority on the issue is that they were connected to the shooting. Not that they are analysts for the efficacy of gun laws, not that they've studied the issue, the reason we're supposed to listen to them on policy is because they were affected by the crime.

This evokes a reaction from the right, and they've taken it too far in some cases, and we've seen that, and we've seen Don Jr. wade into it. All I'm saying is that these dirty attacks on the kids are partly because of this emotion-based politicization of children affected by a shooting. But we're always going to see these Sandy Hook-esque attacks by the extreme fringe, that element doesn't seem to be going away any time soon. I don't think those actors care at all about any of this.

I don't defend Don. Jr. liking these tweets, I simply wanted to argue that maybe stop having children affected by the tragedy on your network for a week straight advocating for gun control.

- - - Updated - - -

Nobody asked you to be a fundamentally indecent human being by dismissing firearm massacres as 'acceptable losses'.

Well, good thing I didn't say that.

[szechuan]

But it's an emotional argument. The basis for their authority on the issue is that they were connected to the shooting. Not that they are analysts for the efficacy of gun laws, not that they've studied the issue, the reason we're supposed to listen to them on policy is because they were the affected by the crime.

It isn't. Asking for more Gun Control laws is not an Emotional Argument. How are you not getting this? How do you the ones speaking out did not do any research?
So you're saying we shouldn't listen to people affected by the Crime? Explain.

I don't defend Don. Jr. liking these tweets, I simply wanted to argue that maybe stop having children affected by the tragedy on your network for a week straight advocating for gun control.

Because the TEENS are advocating for it.

[Elegiac]

I don't defend Don. Jr. liking these tweets, I simply wanted to argue that maybe stop having children affected by the tragedy on your network for a week straight advocating for gun control.

They entered the political arena of their own volition.

Or do you think high school students are totally unaware of the gun control argument? Lol.

Well, good thing I didn't say that.

Yeah, horse shit.

You've been wading into every thread regarding Parkland and giving your best impression of a Victorian woman swooning. "Oh, -why- can't people look at this more rationally." The answer is because the US is the only developed country where kids get shot at school on a regular basis, and we have a significant portion of this country ranging from hardcore gun nuts to their facile idiot friends in the rest of the GOP stonewalling -any- attempt at regulation because "muh freedoms".

You're being a concern troll, but that's to be expected of the deplorables at this point. Honor and modesty, all laws human and divine alike disregarded in a spirit of recklessness and intemperance, indeed.

[Mayhem]

I think there's a big difference between claiming there are "crisis actors", and claiming that the son of a retired FBI agent might not be the most impartial advocate, considering the flak the FBI is catching for letting the ball drop on "following protocol", as they put it, with regards to leads on the shooter.

Not that I advocate for either. But this would be a much different thing if Don Jr. were liking tweets about "crisis actors", let's just say. And it doesn't help that he's liking a tweet referencing an article that uses the term "deep state" so loosely. If you want to make an argument about Obama holdovers engaging in acts to stymie Trump, you'd better have some evidence, not implied statements of fact.

But I also think some of this might come from the emotional argument that gets made after these shootings. In this case, it's trotting out children to plead for action on gun control. David Hogg isn't the only one. They also had Junior Cameron Kasky on to plead along the same lines. And CNN has a huge special tomorrow night called, "Stand Up: The Students of Stoneman Douglas Demand Action", with more children involved.

A few months ago, Jimmy Kimmel was the emotional argumentator in the Las Vegas shooting. It provokes a response to see the argument not being based on facts and data, but the emotional question, "Look at these innocent kids pleading for gun control. Won't you help them?"

All that said, the right should stick to debunking these emotion-based tactics (which they do very well), without resorting to accusations that can't be proven or flat-out conspiracy theories.

It's kind of hard to base arguments on facts and data when the governmant isn't allowed to do research into the matter, but yeah also boo emotions!