comment: >
  
  Yup. This is what the CFPB is supposed to be working on (among other things), but of course Republicans defunded it, then put a clown in charge of it for four years who is on the record stating he didn't think it should even exist, and are now trying to sue them to take away what little funding they do have.
context: We're worried and concerned that these are connected and possibly politically motivated
  
  Oh you think it might be? >
  
  "The suspect was spouting anti-Asian remarks while beating the Asian man... Not sure if it was a hate crime" - Police >
  
  That's some fine work there Lou.
  Bake em away toys. >
  
  What did you say, chief? >
  
  Do what the kid says. >
  
  Expect to see more shootings and killings of democratic members going forward from the angry right as the white population begins to diminish and voters swing to the left. >
  
  Reminds me of Sundown Towns back in the day >
  
  Back in the day? >
  
  Yeah, Mon-day. >
  
  Yester-day. To-day. Tomorrow-day. >
  
  Let the message to all potential domestic terrorists be loud and clear:  no one gets away with shooting at elected officials’ homes six times.  
  Five is the maximum and you need to respect that. >
  
  
  According to Albuquerque police, the other shootings happened Dec. 10 at the former campaign office of Raúl Torrez, who was elected New Mexico's attorney general; Dec. 11 when more than a dozen gunshots hit the home of former County Commissioner Debbie O’Malley; Jan. 3 when eight shots were fired in the direction of the home of New Mexico Sen. Linda Lopez; and Jan. 5 when shots fired outside the downtown law offices of newly appointed state Sen. Moe Maestas.
  
  I just can't with this stuff anymore... >
  
  It's almost like demonizing and dehumanizing rhetoric about your political rivals has consequences. >
  
  True, but to be clear, there's only one side demonizing and dehumanizing to the point of shooting up restaurants, politicians' homes, plotting kidnapping, and attempting to overthrow the government. Demonizing them for condoning and encouraging that behavior isn't hypocritical. The gtepublican party is a mortal threat to the country. >
  
  you forgot shooting power stations too >
  
  They prove that one and catch anyone yet?
  Edit: Legit asking as I just dont know and am wondering cause the reporting was all over the place with speculation. >
  
  There was really only one thing going on at that time, and when police checked with the lady who said she knew who did it she said it was God. I'm not sure who's actually behind it, but at least one person is fanatically approving of it. >
  
  “We are domestic terrorists”   
  That motto was emblazoned on the stage at  CPAC >
  
  I believe it was 'We are ALL domestic terrorists', just to remove any potential ambiguity. >
  
  Fair enough... I would take " all" in that situation to mean..all attendees or those of like minded philosophy >
  
  Should be charged with Terrorism... I am sick of the soft gloves approach to right wing terrorism. Take the gloves off and stick it to these people and make an example. >
  
  its the direct definition of terrorism. its politically motivated hate-motivated attempted murder >
  
  wonder how long until the suspect gets a spot at cpac >
  
  They are all domestic terrorists >
  
  How dare you quote them, verbatim! >
  
  No, no. What are you guys doing? White men can't commit acts of terror
  
  The suspect, whose name was not released
  
  Now, I wonder if that would have been the case if this guy's name was Mohammad? >
  
  
  The number of terrorist attacks by far-right perpetrators rose over the past decade, more than quadrupling between 2016 and 2017
  In both 2018 and 2019, right-wing attackers caused more than 90 percent of the terrorism-related deaths in the United States
  One thing is certain: if the United States does not treat right-wing terrorism as a real threat and react appropriately, there is no chance of lessening the danger posed by violent right-wing extremists >
  
  We need to figure out the proper place to draw the line at what constitutes incitement to violence, because our current standard is not cutting it. We all know why these right wing terrorist attacks are happening. It's because Trump, Tucker, Charlie Kirk, Alex Jones, Ron Watkins and their ilk tell people to go out and commit them, but with just enough deniability to not be legally responsible. 
  But if you knowingly tell a lie which if true would justify violence, you should be held responsible when someone inevitably believes it. >
  
  
  if you knowingly tell a lie which if true would justify violence, you should be held responsible when someone inevitably believes it.
  
  If we tried to encode this into law we would then have to define what constitutes "justified violence," which gets a yikes from me. That would be even more problematic than the existing legal term "reasonable person."
  Something definitely needs to change but I think that might not be the best way to go about it. >
  
  I'm just spitballing on reddit, not writing legislation, but I'm just trying to get the point across that there right wing infotainment complex regularly tells lies of such magnitude that there's no other possible outcome than inciting people to violence and we have to find a way to hold then accountable for that. 
  If it were true that the government had indeed been hijacked through voter fraud by people who literally rape and kill babies for their blood and are planning to commit genocide against your race, how could you not take up arms against them? January 6 and Trump's attempted coup would all be justified. Hell, I'd be right there with them. But in reality, every word of it is a lie. 
  And yet a significant chunk of right wing commentators say this (or some version of it) with impunity, despite there being not a shred of truth to it. And we just cannot let that continue. >
  
  
  A suspect was in custody Monday in a string of shootings that may have targeted Democratic leaders in Albuquerque, officials said Monday.
  
  Huh. It’s almost like if you rile people up by telling them that Democrats are eating babies, trying to replace them with the entire continent of South America and give them free everything on their dime, replace Christianity with Islam, and eventually put them in camps… the gullible and stupid ones among us might believe it and lash out.
  But that was the point, right? Any blood spilled by these people is on their hands. >
  
  No, the point is that the blood isn't on their hands, because they're 'just asking questions'. 
  Anyone who chooses to act on those questions is a mentally unstable lone wolf gunman. Or an antifa false-flag operative. Or a patriot. I'm not sure which it is this week, but Tucker probably knows. >
  
  Amazing. Seems like they did a video canvasssing the way they did for the Idaho murders. If the suspect drove his car to these locations, there is a high likelihood that he was captured on Ring cameras and dashcams and gas station CCTV all the way back to his house. Naturally this takes a long time, first to gather the footage, plotting each camera on a map, then to go through it IDing vehicles. Likely they traced the vehicle back to a specific neighbourhood, then they sent a patrol car through the area, looking for a specific make. Then with that data, they can investigate the registration, and see if this owner has social medias and the like. They can quietly check to see if they had an alibi at the time of the shootings - were they, say, out of town, or at a job? Does this person post far right grievance articles on their social medias, say. They might talk to co-workers. Has this person ever expressed any anti-Democrat sentiment? Does this person own a firearm? Once they have enough evidence, they can go to a judge for a search warrant and find the gun itself. If the ballistics match, the guy is done. >
  
  Friendly reminder that Amazon gives police access to your video without your permission >
  
  Those agreements you just click "agree" on actually matter. >
  
  Agreed.
  And I think it's also important to say that if 99.9% of people are clicking agree on things that they haven't read or understood, that's not a problem with the people, it's a deliberate problem with the system.
  If you designed a printer and 99.9% of people clicked past an important menu that fucked things up for them later on, you'd say the printer's designed wrong. Doesn't matter that the menu technically existed, it matters that it wasn't designed in a way that caused actual real-life humans to use it correctly. >
  
  Absolutely. We need laws that require plain english for agreements, lay terms, etc.. We need agreements that the purchased product will function as expected by a reasonable consumer, and not do something funky like, I dunno, give all of your videos to law enforcement. And so on and so forth. >
  
  Plain English and to the point/reasonably concise.  It’s possible to write plain English and still explain a simple concept in ten times more words than necessary.
  The agreements/contracts are definitely a lot harder to read due to legalese, but the length is also a major factor.   Nobody wants to read 20 pages of anything when presented with a  newly-updated Windows EULA…for the third time that year.  Hell, for updates to EULAs, it would be nice if they highlighted the changes so you don’t have to re-read all 20 pages. 
  At any rate, many people truly don’t have time to read 20 pages of EULA whenever presented with an EULA, regardless of how comprehensible the language—so we ought to make sure that that is addressed if at all possible.
  Companies and their legal teams have been doing everything they can to dissuade consumers from reading the contracts for at least a century, probably much longer.  There’s a reason “fine print” is an expression in the English language—fine print is a pain in the arse to read, especially for the visually-impaired.  My point is that companies will find any way they can to prevent us from being able to give informed consent (not in the medical sense) when we sign their forms.