I openly admit to not understanding R-voting Republican ladies in any depth at all. I thank you for your answer, and am donating a bit every month to Warnock and Beasley.
He's stupid in that he hasn't accumulated much general knowledge. This emerges if you read ten articles about him. Not counting the strange statements he makes about how to keep safe during the spread of an epidemic.
Not to burst his bubble (OK, yes, to burst is bubble) - he DOES know that "Deparments" are under the Executive Branch and the Senate, for which he is running, is part of the Legislative Branch?
The Senate could form a Committee ... but I guarantee they won't let s freshman member form a committee.
I actually clicked the link provided and read it. I'd heard enough Trump speeches to compare. Look at the sentence structure, the logic gaps, and the disjointed conjectures glued together with references to the unnamed "we all know" and it's synonyms.
I meant a link to where you got the Mother Jones graphic. I searched their site (and this article), but couldn't find any articles that had that graphic or spoke of it. But looking at your emphasis on domestic violence, I went back and found it here. As a stand-alone graphic, it's a bit misleading.
As best I can tell (they aren't very clear), what MJ did was pick 22 shooters from 2011 to 2019(?) who had a history of some variety of acted-upon misogyny. "...we found that in at least 22 mass shootings since 2011—more than a third of the public attacks over the past eight years—the perpetrators had a history of domestic violence, specifically targeted women, or had stalked and harassed women." So the "mostly not white" only refers to that group of 22 who are a subset of at least 60 shooters.
This is all further confused by their referencing a data set of only 62 from 1982-2012, which they apparently did not use at all in making the graphic. That data has been updated several times (it is hard to keep up! :( ), but that article did show that "forty-four of the (62) killers were white males (71%)" and my feeling is that it's become more lopsided since then.
A link to their most recently updated database can be found here.
One additional confounding element, or perhaps I should say deliberately obscuring?, is how "mass shooters" is defined, i.e., they need to do it in public. So many, many cases where a man kills his wife/gf and kids, something that happens about two dozen times a year, would qualify by number of victims, if only he'd done it out in the front yard instead of in the kitchen.
I openly admit to not understanding R-voting Republican ladies in any depth at all. I thank you for your answer, and am donating a bit every month to Warnock and Beasley.
I live in a Trumpsylvanian area of NYC (Belle Harbor). I observe them in their natural habitat. :)
All the kudos for what you are doing!
I just don't understand.
I have a box of rocks and a can of paint that're smarter than this weener.
I'd like to know more about that-- sounds way out!
He's stupid in that he hasn't accumulated much general knowledge. This emerges if you read ten articles about him. Not counting the strange statements he makes about how to keep safe during the spread of an epidemic.
Not to burst his bubble (OK, yes, to burst is bubble) - he DOES know that "Deparments" are under the Executive Branch and the Senate, for which he is running, is part of the Legislative Branch?
The Senate could form a Committee ... but I guarantee they won't let s freshman member form a committee.
I actually clicked the link provided and read it. I'd heard enough Trump speeches to compare. Look at the sentence structure, the logic gaps, and the disjointed conjectures glued together with references to the unnamed "we all know" and it's synonyms.
I meant a link to where you got the Mother Jones graphic. I searched their site (and this article), but couldn't find any articles that had that graphic or spoke of it. But looking at your emphasis on domestic violence, I went back and found it here. As a stand-alone graphic, it's a bit misleading.
As best I can tell (they aren't very clear), what MJ did was pick 22 shooters from 2011 to 2019(?) who had a history of some variety of acted-upon misogyny. "...we found that in at least 22 mass shootings since 2011—more than a third of the public attacks over the past eight years—the perpetrators had a history of domestic violence, specifically targeted women, or had stalked and harassed women." So the "mostly not white" only refers to that group of 22 who are a subset of at least 60 shooters.
This is all further confused by their referencing a data set of only 62 from 1982-2012, which they apparently did not use at all in making the graphic. That data has been updated several times (it is hard to keep up! :( ), but that article did show that "forty-four of the (62) killers were white males (71%)" and my feeling is that it's become more lopsided since then.
A link to their most recently updated database can be found here.
One additional confounding element, or perhaps I should say deliberately obscuring?, is how "mass shooters" is defined, i.e., they need to do it in public. So many, many cases where a man kills his wife/gf and kids, something that happens about two dozen times a year, would qualify by number of victims, if only he'd done it out in the front yard instead of in the kitchen.
https://uploads.disquscdn.c...
And increase funding for jails?
Can you say Punch Drunk?HW is a poster for what happens when you get banged in the head much too often and way too hard.
Possibly presidential material. We should observe.
This is the guy my stooopid BIL says he'll vote for. My God.
Ask him what he thinks Senator Calhoun would have thought about HW's candidacy?
"...machine guns setup inside to lay down overlapping fields of crossfire ..." that didn't work at Normandy.