How about just looking around. Those people live on a big stage and their actions are all theatre. Whats really happening is in your community right in front of your face. Twitter is just a bunch of bullshit and there is nothing valuable to be learned there. It’s a fake and contrived world designed to sell stuff whether it be products or politicians. It’s all a sales presentation.
But you are equating the offhand comment of a woman who is a nobody with actual political rhetoric from politicians.
And my understanding was that the attack on Rand Paul wasn’t even political. He and his neighbor don’t get along due to ordinary neighbor issues.
2 Likes
Yes, a lot of it is just a show, but i also find it interesting how people react to certain tweets. It often carries over into real life discussions. People who claim they never watch fox news and don’t use Twitter will make identical arguments to many of the things that are posted there. Whether that is correlation or causation, i really don’t know.
Like the next time i visit my parents and they bring up whatever senile thing Biden did in the past week, I’ll have a better chance of actually knowing whatever out of context thing that happened that they are referring to.
2 Likes
I guess this is where we disagree. She’s a political strategist with over 190,000 Twitter followers who is also a writer for HuffPo and is a member of the DNC (currently Vice Chair of the Veterans and Military Families Council). She is expected to take over her mother’s seat in the US House of Representatives whenever her mother decides to retire.
She has more than 3.5x times the Twitter followers as Rand Paul, as a means of comparison. Is Rand Paul a nobody?
You just re-lable far right to be true patriots defending our liberties to make sense of the logic here.
On MTP they mentioned a third perdon was in the house at the time of the attack and let the police in as Paul was being hit with the hammer???
I think Ranger is being interviewed on Meet the Press right now trying to bothsides the political violence.
I have a Twitter account. There is of course mostly garbage there, which is why I choose not to read whatever they decide to serve me randomly without an account.
Part of the twitter model is that you choose who to follow, and then get a semi-custom feed of what people you follow post and like. I mostly follow sports, fellow fans of my teams, local food, local beer, local urbanism, travel,… Gives me a custom feed of things I like hearing about. I post on similar topics and do not generally post about politics, so most of my followers have at least 1 shared interest with me.
I don’t follow much political content, but do from a few folks that I find interesting. Most twitter political “discourse” winds up as hot garbage not worth wasting my time on. If I’m following someone that starts posting horseshit, they get an unfollow. If they are abusive or promoting misinformation they get a block.
A negative of the followers model is that you can get a somewhat insular viewpoint. Fine by me for the topics I like to follow.
Nope, that wasn’t me. I don’t watch that show, but I’ll have to assume that it was some other very informed and objective person.
She isnt a nobody and she probably shouldnt have said what she said but a neighbor feud about leaves is far less terrifying than a complete stranger breaking into Pelosi’s house to kill her because of her political position and instead attacking her husband because he was there. Horrifying.
Do we know his intent was to kill Nancy? Has that been verified? I thought the hammer belonged to the Pelosi’s and the intruder took it away from Paul.
He posted all the crazy shit on the internet that seems consistent with wanting to kill pelosi, but that could also describe a few million Americans.
That would describe Twitter
Seems like a logical conclusion to me when a crazy person does what he did
Those few million americans didnt break into her house and assault her husband. Seems pretty clear his intent was to kill her
…with a hammer that he was going to get from them???
I don’t quite follow a “logical conclusion” being applied to a “crazy person”.
I’ll wait to draw a conclusion about his intent when investigators release more details.
It sounded a bit more like 8 Chan than Twitter but I’m sure you can find it there as well.
John Hinckley didn’t shoot Reagan because of political beliefs.
I’m kinda with you on this. I think he wanted to do something to her but I’m not sure kill her makes the most sense if he shows up without a weapon.
But he did try to kill her husband once he was there.