SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
A suspected Islamic terrorist opened fire at a gay nightclub in Florida, killing 50 people and wounding another 53 before he was killed by police. While authorities continue to investigate to determine whether this man had ties to ISIS, the terror organization has not been quiet in praising the attack. This comes three days after ISIS announced they would attack somewhere in Florida. Today's attack marks the largest act of terrorism on US soil since 9/11.
takyon: The gunman reportedly called 911 emergency services to pledge allegiance to ISIS. The President will hold a briefing momentarily. Compare this article to the original submission.
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
Islamic Terrorist Opens Fire on Florida Nightclub; 50 Killed, 53 Wounded
|
Log In/Create an Account
| Top
| 434 comments
| Search Discussion
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Hacking's just another word for nothing left to kludge.
(Score: 4, Informative) by julian on Monday June 13 2016, @02:57AM
I'm not a Hillary supporter. I'm a liberal, not a Democrat. I've been supporting Bernie Sanders and will vote for Jill Stein if Hillary is the Democrat's nominee. Yet I am not blind to the fact that, on most issues, in most years, in most places, the Democrats are far more in favor of gay rights than the Republicans. Are you seriously proposing the Republicans will stand up for gay rights? You think I'm that big of a fool?
(Score: 2) by Grishnakh on Monday June 13 2016, @05:51PM
Are you seriously proposing the Republicans will stand up for gay rights? You think I'm that big of a fool?
With Trump now leading the party, this might just change. Trump doesn't seem to care much about LGBTQ people, said that Caitlyn Jenner could use whichever bathroom at Trump Tower she was comfortable with (and she did), and has said it's a states' rights issue (which of course is just a way for GOP politicians to avoid an issue, so they don't piss off the more conservative people too much).
And now, with this incident squarely placing Islam against LGBT acceptance, and the Donald having a history of both nationalistic and anti-Islam statements (banning all Muslims from entering the country "until we can figure out what's going on"), while the Democrat side and the liberals having a history of cozying up to Muslims (crying "Islamophobia" against anyone who criticizes them), I could definitely see Trump using this as an opportunity to gain more mainstream acceptance by cozying up to LGBT groups while demonizing Islam even more. Obviously, as we can see here, we really do have good reasons to fear Islam: its adherents do go on killing sprees from time to time. Whereas with LGBT people, there is precisely zero evidence we have anything to fear with them: when was the last time you heard of gay people mass-murdering straight people? A politician looking to exploit fear here can do so pretty easily.
Personally, I think this will likely go down in history books as one of the factors that helped propel Trump into the White House. Now, I'm not saying this is necessarily a horrible thing either; the alternative doesn't look any better, and in some ways worse. If Hillary gets elected, I definitely foresee us getting involved in a large-scale war in Syria within 100 days. It'll be a repeat of the Bush Administration, though probably worse since Russia is already operating in Syria and is directly working to prop up Assad, who neo-liberal globalists like Hillary hate and want to remove from power at all costs. With Trump, I expect he'll work with Russia to drop a few bombs on ISIS and that's about it, but I worry he'll wreck the economy by trying to change course too fast towards more isolationist policies.
(Score: 2) by julian on Monday June 13 2016, @08:25PM
It's funny, because I get the exact opposite impression. I think Trump is likely to start a war. He's so thin skinned and takes everything personally, he's likely to get frustrated that he can't bully other governments around like he can with his own executive branch and impulsively escalate military tension past the point of no return. I don't know where in the world it would happen but his attitude makes me nervous. He's dangerously unhinged and emotional. Not the kind of calm and thoughtful personality I want for the job (Hillary isn't either, but she's a lot closer).
He's made so many contradictory statements. One day he's an isolationist, the next we're going to ramp up the war against ISIS; torture them and murder their families (good luck getting the military to go along with that, btw).
On the other hand I am fairly confident that Hillary will simply continue Obama's policies.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 13 2016, @06:23PM
Heck no, but Trump would. Rick Santorum on the other hand...
You don't lump democrats together, as shown by your acceptance of Bernie and non-acceptance of Hillary. Why lump republicans together?
(Score: 2) by julian on Monday June 13 2016, @08:36PM
So just answer a thought experiment for me:
There's a person who is a homophobe, and it's really important to them. It's one of the primary things they vote on. They like seeing their homophobia translated into real legislation like banning same-sex marriage (kind of a lost cause now, but maybe it can be reversed later?) and allowing businesses to deny serving customers based on sexual orientation. They have their one vote to cast in November to do the most "good" for their worldview that they can. What party do they vote for?
You know the correct answer to this question as much as I do.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 13 2016, @08:58PM
They focus on congress. Maybe there would be a difference.
It's very clear that the republican party is trying to drop the issue. There are some who still claim to care, not that they actually care, in order to win votes in the deep south.
(Score: 2) by julian on Monday June 13 2016, @09:37PM
It's very clear that the republican party is trying to drop the issue.
I think this is true as well. The problem I see for the GOP is that they don't have a working coalition without social conservatives, especially religious ones. If they joined with the liberals on same-sex issues they'd lose both houses of congress and the presidency for a generation.
So I am really hoping that happens!
It wouldn't be a total failure, however. Conservatism doesn't really exist to win or govern anyway. Conservatism is necessary for liberalism to have something to struggle against and triumph over, and secondarily to slow the rate of change to something manageable on a human timescale. It's been going on for thousands of years. Conservatism sets the agenda for what the next generation of liberals have to overcome. This issue is the perfect example of that process in action. In as little as 20 years it won't be possible to be a conservative who is against marriage equality; just like you can't be a serious candidate of any party today and be against interracial marriage.
I hope our dysfunctional electoral system doesn't result in a total victory for the left however, because there are some areas where they've been overreaching. Our culture for example can only absorb so many externally sourced demographic changes. Or in other words, immigration needs to be slow enough that the new arrivals have no other option than to become American instead of arriving in sufficiently large groups that they can clump together into their own communities and preserve their birth country's culture entirely. That's very destabilizing and ultimately bad for everyone including the immigrants.
There are a couple other issues I'm concerned with, which is why I am not entirely thrilled to see The Right imploding and losing its mind following this charlatan Trump. He's exactly the wrong kind of politician that conservatives need at this moment. Contrast him with William F. Buckley.
I guess Trump is what you get for courting anti-intellectualism for so long.