Fox News contributor Juan Williams reminded his colleagues that the man who allegedly attempted to assassinate former President Donald Trump was a Republican.
“I mean, it’s not only when you think about the president, former President Trump, but also the people in the audience, the people who died, and you understand the danger,” Williams explained during a panel discussion on Fox News Sunday. “It just makes you feel like the country is, the level of political polarization in the country is at a danger point.”
“It’s, I think, a reflection of the divisions within the United States today, not only liberal, conservative, but also on the extremes,” he continued. “This young man, they say he’s a Republican.”
Williams said he found the scenario puzzling.
“The whole thing is just like, especially with the Internet, I think the Internet feeds a lot of the extremism that we’re experiencing in the country, drives people,” he explained. “The politics of grievance, anger, all the conspiracy theories.”
[…]
Williams expected the Republican National Convention to “become a more zealous affirmation of President Trump as a martyr for having been shot at, and I think it’s going to change the whole tone.”
The FBI has identified the shooter as 20-year-old Thomas Matthew Crooks. Although a motive for the assassination attempt was unclear, Pennsylvania voter records listed a person with his name and address as a Republican […]
Trump Rally Gunman Was ‘Definitely Conservative,’ classmates recall — (Archived)
Why Thomas Matthew Crooks tried to assassinate Donald Trump is a mystery to investigators and his ex-classmates […]
[Former classmate] Max R. Smith recalled taking an American history course with Crooks as a sophomore. He did recall Crooks making political statements — but they shed no light on his actions Saturday.
“He definitely was conservative,” he said. “It makes me wonder why he would carry out an assassination attempt on the conservative candidate.”
Smith recalled a mock debate in which their history professor posed government policy questions and asked students to stand on one side of the classroom or the other to signal their support or opposition for a given proposal.
“The majority of the class were on the liberal side, but Tom, no matter what, always stood his ground on the conservative side,” Smith said. “That’s still the picture I have of him. Just standing alone on one side while the rest of the class was on the other.”
Maybe he didn’t like the idea of a wanna be dictator in a position where he can damage democracy.
Haha, yeah. I have thought that every time you hear, “the motive is unclear.”.
I guess to be fair, he could have also just been crazy. Or something. But Occam’s Razor comes to mind.
Reagan’s shooter did it to try to impress an actress. Shinzo Abe’s shooter didn’t like a specific church that Abe had ties to. Teddy Roosevelt’s shooter thought the ghost of William McKinley told him to do it. Not all assassins have straightforward or obvious motives.
I mean, Abe’s shooter seemed to have more straightforward motivations: Abe propped up that specific church, and that specific church ruined his family.
At least, from what I’ve understood from English language news articles in the headlines around the time it happened.
Yeah exactly this. Can’t speculate, impossible to tell really.
How is it hard to understand why a Republican might have issues with the man destroying the Republican Party
He donates to Democrats. That doesn’t just make it hard to understand, but hard to believe and if someones political affiliations are strong enough to be making donations, it’s hard to believe they would just up and join the other side all of a sudden. Me personally, I believe it’s a lie
Deny the premise in your own thread, got nothing to do with me.
A one-time, $15 donation is that strong to you?
Any amount is if you’re a Republican. It just doesn’t make sense, why wouldn’t he donate to his own party and instead donate to the opposition?
I think you’ve forgotten that centrists exist. Which is not entirely surprising, given how polarized politics is these days, but still. There are a lot of “I hate both sides” folks out there, and I wouldn’t be surprised to see them not particularly committing to either party.
In many ways I find it refreshing how little there is to be said about the shooter. No manifesto, low social media presence — the guy just didn’t have that much to dig up. I shudder to think how endlessly he would be getting discussed day after day if he had left a pile of opinions behind, and I am very glad we avoided that.
News orgs, though? Man, they are frustrated. The most they have to work off of is which party he was registered to, plus hearsay and gossip of people who knew him at one point or another. Shit like that is just trying to capitalize on a dramatic event for clicks when absolutely nothing of substance is available. It’s vapor. Meaningless.
Assassination attempt aside, I could hardly be happier that the shooter – whoever he was – did not leave behind rhetorical carrion for the vultures. Site after site is clawing at the dirt, trying to force me to care about something that I really don’t need or want to care about, and for once, they have nothing to do it with. Good. I have far more important things to worry about.
Steven Bannon said it would be good for maga if the felon was assassinated. If Google were not so useless now I could find a link. I heard the clip on a policatal show, probably MeidasTouch
So they say…a Republican that donates to Democrats. Got it
