Shooter at Mormon Church: Maga Trumper

[Angst]

There are a lot of guns on both sides.

i'd think you substantiated whatever point you were making irt guns and shooters here, but as an equal fighter against SPIN, i am joining you in refusing to read any statistics irt gun violence

 

[Arwon]

Mostly I would guess, but there are conservatives who vote GOP because they won't vote for any Democrat. i am mostly that way regarding Republicans; any Democrat is better than a Republican theses days. It wasn't always so though. Trump's power over the GOP has made what were blurry lines into a deep divide.

There's a difference between functional Trump supporters and enthusiastic ones.

They all enable the regime and they're all Trumpists in the end, and at the end of this road they'll all be complicit in its crimes. But they're not all fully members of the ideological coalition, which the term "MAGA" has come to mean.

 

[Birdjaguar]

Since they haven't released anything, that means everything everyone is saying is guesswork, yes?

I used the word "much" and you changed it to "anything". Spin doctor at work I see. If you actually kept up with the news, there have been other sources of information. No I haven't posted any guesswork.

 

[danjuno]

i'd think you substantiated whatever point you were making irt guns and shooters here, but as an equal fighter against SPIN, i am joining you in refusing to read any statistics irt gun violence

CBB Both-sides-ing? Is it a day ending in "y"?

 

[Manfred Belheim]

Mostly I would guess, but there are conservatives who vote GOP because they won't vote for any Democrat. i am mostly that way regarding Republicans; any Democrat is better than a Republican theses days. It wasn't always so though. Trump's power over the GOP has made what were blurry lines into a deep divide.

Okay... so if Trump has made blurry lines into a deep divide, then I think you're saying that anyone voting Republican is effectively declaring themselves a supporter Trump. And "a supporter of Trump" is the defining factor of "being MAGA". So, despite everyone saying "no", it really is the case that MAGA and Republican are just interchangeable then? Perhaps not in a broader historical sense, but in the sense of a label to apply to someone in the here and now.

If not, what would allow a proud Republican voter in 2025 to sidestep the label "MAGA"?

Edit: I supopse this answers that:

There's a difference between functional Trump supporters and enthusiastic ones.

They all enable the regime and they're all Trumpists in the end, and at the end of this road they'll all be complicit in its crimes. But they're not all fully members of the ideological coalition, which the term "MAGA" has come to mean.

Although I would say that "you're not MAGA, you're just complicit in everything they're complicit in" isn't a hugely meaningful distinction.

 

[Birdjaguar]

Okay... so if Trump has made blurry lines into a deep divide, then I think you're saying that anyone voting Republican is effectively declaring themselves a supporter Trump. And "a supporter of Trump" is the defining factor of "being MAGA". So, despite everyone saying "no", it really is the case that MAGA and Republican are just interchangeable then? Perhaps not in a broader historical sense, but in the sense of a label to apply to someone in the here and now.

If not, what would allow a proud Republican voter in 2025 to sidestep the label "MAGA"?

Edit: I supopse this answers that:



Although I would say that "you're not MAGA, you're just complicit in everything they're complicit in" isn't a hugely meaningful distinction.

Yes, voting for Trump makes you complicit in what he has done and continues to do. Non MAGA Republicans might well vote for a "better" GOP slate of candidates or not vote at all.

 

[Broken_Erika]

I know of Republicans who are now independents 'cause of Trump.

 

[Canadian Bluebeer]

I used the word "much" and you changed it to "anything". Spin doctor at work I see. If you actually kept up with the news, there have been other sources of information. No I haven't posted any guesswork.

You did say "much" and I did say "anything". Neither of us said anything about other sources. We were talking about the fibbies.
I wasn't spinning anything.

CBB Both-sides-ing? Is it a day ending in "y"?

heh. I have contempt for both sides. Water is wet. so?

 

[Gori the Grey]

If not, what would allow a proud Republican voter in 2025 to sidestep the label "MAGA"?

Not vote for Trump. State categorically that they are not voting for Trump. Say that the reason is that he has distorted what the Republican party has generally stood for, i.e. that he is not a good Republican and that you want your party back from his hijacking.

Some people do do this. MSNBC has gathered a gaggle of them: Nicole Wallace (worked for Bush Jr.) is one and they've given her her own show. Michael Steele (former chairman of GOP) is another.

Although I would say that "you're not MAGA, you're just complicit in everything they're complicit in" isn't a hugely meaningful distinction.

Right now, true patriots of both parties can see that Trump is corrupting the democratic system itself, and people on the left want clear-headed people on the right to say as much and take a stand against that corruption. One's way of not being complicit in Trump's destruction of democracy is not to vote for him, and to state clearly that you see that that is what he is doing, put country over party for this bad stretch of American history.

 

[danjuno]

heh. I have contempt for both sides. Water is wet. so?

Both-sidesing means treating both sides the same despite there being a meaningful difference.

In this case, both gun ownership in general and using said guns for political violence is a GOP thing the majority of the time.

And again, your both-sidesing is contradicted by your frequent defense of MAGA. Again, this is something anybody can look into your post history can see.

 

[Broken_Erika]

Latter-day Saints raise money for family of gunman who attacked their church​

Members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints have donated thousands of dollars to the family of the man believed to have carried out a deadly attack on one of their churches in Michigan, killing four people.

Police said Thomas Sanford drove his truck into the church in Grand Blanc during a worship service on Sunday and opened fire before starting a massive blaze. He was killed by police.

David Butler, a member of the denomination living in Utah, said he was moved to launch a fundraiser for Sanford's widow and children.

As of Thursday, it had brought in more than $250,000 (£186,000), with many donors identifying themselves as Latter-day Saints, commonly called Mormons.
"The family will face financial hardship and psychological trauma as a result of this week's horrifying events," Mr Butler wrote in the fundraiser page on the website GiveSendGo.

"On top of that, one of the Sanford sons deals with serious medical challenges that require ongoing care, treatment, and specialized support."

• What we know about Michigan church shooting and arson attack

Mr Butler said he had no connection to the Sanford family or to Grand Blanc, describing himself as "an ordinary member" of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. He is also a fantasy and science fiction writer.

But he added that he felt compelled to start the fundraiser "to create some stability in a time of heartbreak and upheaval" for Sanford's family.

Donations, he said, will go towards their daily needs and medical treatment.

Some donors listed on the page are anonymous, but many left comments describing themselves as Latter-day Saints.

"God loves you and your family and I wish I could give you a big hug," wrote one donor.

"The members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints love ALL of you and hope you are able to heal with them," wrote another.

The New York Times reported that some people on-line have criticised the fundraiser.

Eight people were also injured in the attack, which police believe was a "targeted act of violence".

It shocked the local community and church nationwide.

Money has also been donated to fundraisers for victims and their families. Flags were lowered throughout Michigan to honour the victims, and neighbours, including members of other denominations, have held vigils.

One survivor of the attack wrote in a letter that she had forgiven the gunman for killing her father.

"When he [the gunman] came over to me I felt very calm, peaceful even as I kneeled next to my dad, my hands still on dad," the woman wrote in the letter, shared with BBC's US partner CBS News. Her name was not published to protect the family's privacy.

"I never took my eyes off his eyes, something happened, I saw pain, he felt lost. I deeply felt it with every fiber of my being," she wrote.

"I forgave him, I forgave him right there, not in words, but with my heart."

Investigators said earlier this week that they are still searching for a motive behind the attack, which happened during a Sunday service attended by hundreds of people.

Officials have said Sanford, 40, was a former Marine who was once deployed to Iraq. In an old interview with local outlet Clarkston News, Sanford said that he was a sergeant and served in Fallujah in 2007.

He had previous arrests for burglary and operating a vehicle while intoxicated, officials said on Monday. Sanford is from a suburb of Flint of about 30,000 people, just a few miles away from Grand Blanc Township.
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c5ygz51lzdro

 

[Manfred Belheim]

Not vote for Trump. State categorically that they are not voting for Trump. Say that the reason is that he has distorted what the Republican party has generally stood for, i.e. that he is not a good Republican and that you want your party back from his hijacking.

Some people do do this. MSNBC has gathered a gaggle of them: Nicole Wallace (worked for Bush Jr.) is one and they've given her her own show. Michael Steele (former chairman of GOP) is another.

Right now, true patriots of both parties can see that Trump is corrupting the democratic system itself, and people on the left want clear-headed people on the right to say as much and take a stand against that corruption. One's way of not being complicit in Trump's destruction of democracy is not to vote for him, and to state clearly that you see that that is what he is doing, put country over party for this bad stretch of American history.

Right, so they could have tried to select another candidate, or campaigned against Trump, etc etc. But when it comes down to the final election, the only way to not be considered "a MAGA" was to not vote for the Republican candidate. So the only way you're allowed to be a Republican, but not MAGA, is to functionally detach yourself from the political process, or to vote for the opposition. At which point you're not really meaningfully "a Republican" anymore, in a politically meaningful sense. So they're basically interchangeable terms.

 

[Gori the Grey]

At which point you're not really meaningfully "a Republican" anymore, in a politically meaningful sense.

I'm not so sure. Trump will pass away eventually. After that, things will be back up for grabs. Some will try to grab his MAGA followers. Some will try to restore what the Republican Party once stood for. Since I don't think anyone in the first camp will succeed (since I think it's a cult of personality and the MAGA enthusiasts won't find any substitute satisfying), someone from the second camp will (to whatever degree they do), a Nikki Haley or Marco Rubio. So you could be a Republican biding your time until that happens.

You can even invoke Bird's principle that some Republicans have only reluctantly voted for Trump, as the lesser of two evils, because they cannot imagine themselves ever voting for a Democrat, and separate that crowd from a guy like this, who, again, identifies himself as MAGA rather than as Republican.

As for how politically irrelevant those people presently are, yeah, they wring their hands about it all the time.

 

[Angst]

Right, so they could have tried to select another candidate, or campaigned against Trump, etc etc. But when it comes down to the final election, the only way to not be considered "a MAGA" was to not vote for the Republican candidate. So the only way you're allowed to be a Republican, but not MAGA, is to functionally detach yourself from the political process, or to vote for the opposition. At which point you're not really meaningfully "a Republican" anymore, in a politically meaningful sense. So they're basically interchangeable terms.

no.

reps have a very specific party line that's very loyalty first (and it's actually not a maga thing), and that's basically what this post is about. squaring the need to always vote republican regardless of what happens to the party. if you want to be guilty by association, be my guest, but people don't actually inherently hold you to that standard.

 

[Manfred Belheim]

I'm not so sure. Trump will pass away eventually. After that, things will be back up for grabs.

Yes, so there are once and future Republicans, but in the here and now...

a guy like this, who, again, identifies himself as MAGA rather than as Republican.

Well actually that was what made me ask in the first place. Does he? He had a van with American flags on and doesn't like Biden, but I didn't see anywhere in the description of him in the OP where he identified as such. But maybe there's been something more since then that I missed, I'm not exactly following this closely.

 

[Gori the Grey]

"**** Biden" is a MAGA sentiment. It's what I mean when I say that Trumpism is more of a social movement than a political movement. The old Democrats and Republicans understood themselves as collectively American citizens, who just had differences of opinion on the best policies for the country. What Trump tries to foment is animosity in right-leaning citizens toward left-leaning citizens. That animosity pre-exists Trump, nurtured by Limbaugh and FOX, but Trump mines it and exacerbates it. What many people who respond enthusiastically to Trump like about him is that he gives them permission, even encouragement, to hate their fellow citizens. "**** Biden is not a policy statement; it's channeled animosity"

Again, even though this guy falls in that camp, identifies himself in that way, the evidence I've seen doesn't indicate that this act had that as its motivation. He seems to have a personal beef with Mormonism. Mormons are not the first group one would target if one were acting on Trump's suggestion that one fight "the enemy with," those radical, extremist, terrorist Democrats.

 

[Manfred Belheim]

Yes I'm sure no-one ever said "**** Obama", or "**** Bush", or "**** the other Bush", or "**** Reagan", or "**** Nixon". Feels weird to act as if it was all politeness and cuddles until 2016. And yes, I acknowledge that technically you aren't doing that and provided the caveat of pre-existing aninmosity, but also to some extent you are doing that given that there is no argument without that claim. It also feels even more weird to claim that this citizen-on-citizen animosity is somehow flowing exclusively from the Trump supporters, given some of the things I've seen written on this forum alone in the last decade.

 

[danjuno]

It also feels even more weird to claim that this citizen-on-citizen animosity is somehow flowing exclusively from the Trump supporters, given some of the things I've seen written on this forum alone in the last decade.

"Exclusively" is doing a lot of work there.

I challenge you to find a modern president who has encouraged political violence as much as Trump.

 

[Gori the Grey]

Yes I'm sure no-one ever said "**** Obama", or "**** Bush", or "**** the other Bush", or "**** Reagan", or "**** Nixon"

Nobody made flags with those messages and flew them off the back of their trucks!

 

[Birdjaguar]

Yes I'm sure no-one ever said "**** Obama", or "**** Bush", or "**** the other Bush", or "**** Reagan", or "**** Nixon". Feels weird to act as if it was all politeness and cuddles until 2016. And yes, I acknowledge that technically you aren't doing that and provided the caveat of pre-existing aninmosity, but also to some extent you are doing that given that there is no argument without that claim. It also feels even more weird to claim that this citizen-on-citizen animosity is somehow flowing exclusively from the Trump supporters, given some of the things I've seen written on this forum alone in the last decade.

The divisive politics of the GOP and MAGA over the past decade now manifest themselves all across the daily lives of US citizens: open carry of firearms, local commentary in the news, lawsuits against anything they don't like, yard signs, in your face disdain for anything not far right, book banning, politics preached from the pulpit, non stop radio and TV crap talking, etc. Prior to Trump, our politics was never this terrible or pervasive. Trump and his MAGA servants and Christian Nationalists have invade every aspect of American life with their hate-filled power grab.