When people say that parties should try to win every seat, no matter how "safe" the district might be for the other side, well... one reason is that it might avoid shit like this.
They didn't even have to try to win the general election. Just go to basically any retired Chicago professional athlete, tell him that you need help keeping a Nazi off the ballot, get a thousand signatures, and call it a day. Allowing this nutjob to go on TV for the next several months with "GOP" next to his name is political malpractice.
o0o sounds like a fun game... who can we approach... must be American... lets see here:
My vote would be for Chris Chelios played for the Blackhawks for the entire 90s and was captain from 95-99 as well as captianing US's international team during the Winter Olympics and is in the Hockey Hall of Fame. He also grew up in Chicago, started charities there. Slam Dunk.
Jeremy Roenick is another option. Known Republican and supporter of Trump, but I prefer Chelli.
In the past year, Republicans have fielded candidates who:
1.) Physically assaulted a reporter on the night before Election Day.
2.) Was credibly accused of being a child predator.
3.) A self-proclaimed Nazi.
On top of that, the reason Conor Lamb even had a race to run in last week was because Representative Tim Murphy, staunchly pro-life, was revealed to have pressured a mistress to seek an abortion during a pregnancy scare and resigned. Whatever else these things may or may not tell us, the optics are atrocious.
In the past year, Republicans have fielded candidates who:
1.) Physically assaulted a reporter on the night before Election Day.
2.) Was credibly accused of being a child predator.
3.) A self-proclaimed Nazi.
On top of that, the reason Conor Lamb even had a race to run in last week was because Representative Tim Murphy, staunchly pro-life, was revealed to have pressured a mistress to seek an abortion during a pregnancy scare and resigned. Whatever else these things may or may not tell us, the optics are atrocious.
Don't forget the top of their ticket currently in lawsuits with a porn star, a playboy model, and an apprentice contestant among many other accusers. Same guy who bragged on tape about being able to get away with sexual assault because he's famous.
any republican with some integrity would at this point have to have left the party because the republican party on paper surely doesn't stand for nazism, assaulting journalists and child molestation.
remaining as a member of an organization that tacitly endorses such unamerican deviancy for gross political gain looks pretty deplorable to me.
any republican with some integrity would at this point have to have left the party because the republican party on paper surely doesn't stand for nazism, assaulting journalists and child molestation.
remaining as a member of an organization that tacitly endorses such unamerican deviancy for gross political gain looks pretty deplorable to me.
Too be fair, so far they only stuck by TWO of those candidates. But, as Meat Loaf said......
You can be a Republican and still oppose the likes of Trump and Roy Moore. Many have spoken out against Trump and refused to vote for him. Let's not stereotype Republicans as Trump supporters.
Still, I just looked it up and Trump's approval rating is 82% for Republican voters this month.
Many have spoken out against Trump and refused to vote for him.
Many who? Nobody on the Republican side in congress will so much as disagree with any of the positions he takes. The few that do are either nuts (rand Paul), dying of cancer (McCain) or lame ducks (Corker, Flake) or flip flop around and support him later (Romney, Corker) .
Even then these guys vote for his agenda 99% of the time. He has near universal voting support for every hare brained lie and deplorable policy.
Wasn't it just this year that 3 high ranking and long standing Democrats, Weiner, Conyers, and Franken to be specific, went down for sexual assault, one of which was with a minor and he went to prison for? Lazily painting the Republican party in the image of Roy Moore, who didn't even get elected, while ignoring this fact seems disingenuous.
Wasn't it just this year that 3 high ranking and long standing Democrats, Weiner, Conyers, and Franken to be specific, went down for sexual assault, one of which was with a minor and he went to prison for? Lazily painting the Republican party in the image of Roy Moore, who didn't even get elected, while ignoring this fact seems disingenuous.
True.
However, first, Democrats aren't the "party of family values".
And second, these people resigned when the allegations came out.
The Republican candidates not only NOT resigned their candidacies, but they brazenly carried on, and one of those was STILL elected.
If there is justice, this pro-Nazi candidate will go down in flames as Moore did.
Edit-Just to be clear, I'm not saying Democrats condone sexual assault, but there's a difference when you brand, BRAND your party as EXPLICITLY against the things that you then, in turn, have members conducting.
Like the Republican who DID resign because he had his mistress get an abortion. Oops.
Wasn't it just this year that 3 high ranking and long standing Democrats, Weiner, Conyers, and Franken to be specific, went down for sexual assault, one of which was with a minor and he went to prison for? Lazily painting the Republican party in the image of Roy Moore, who didn't even get elected, while ignoring this fact seems disingenuous.
Weiner was not a high ranking democrat, house democrat wasn't he? Guy has real problems with young ones and stuff, bad dude. Conyers was long serving and out for serial harrasment right? His issues seem to be the a long standing problem as well. Franken was caught on camera in a compromising position but was hardly a serial assaulter or anything by accounts and he did the right thing and resigned.
Trump's been accused by more than a dozen women of sexual assault. And as far as I know, there are no nazis and neo-nazis that are running as democrats but the whole white supremacy vote seems to be a bloc of the Republican party. Like the old radical right, now we got the alt-right.
However, first, Democrats aren't the "party of family values".
I don't think disregarding family values makes ones sexual assault any more or less morally reprehensible.
Also, the fact that the Democrats aren't the party of family values is another reason why I oppose them ideologically. They do everything possible to encourage single parenthood which is a tremendous detriment to children's development, from educational standards to mental health to risk of abuse and substance abuse and poverty and more.
Their flippant disregard for the family is a flippant disregard for a healthy environment for children.
I'll probably be asked, rightly, to provide sources for my claims, so here's some.
However, first, Democrats aren't the "party of family values".
I don't think disregarding family values makes ones sexual assault any more or less morally reprehensible.
Also, the fact that the Democrats aren't the party of family values is another reason why I oppose them ideologically. They do everything possible to encourage single parenthood which is a tremendous detriment to children's development, from educational standards to mental health to risk of abuse and substance abuse and poverty and more.
Their flippant disregard for the family is a flippant disregard for a healthy environment for children.
I'll probably be asked, rightly, to provide sources for my claims, so here's some.
In what way do Democrats "encourage" single-parenthood?? Moreover, what the hell is a "family value"?? Flippant disregard for the family?? How does one "promote" family values, which, in and of themselves, are completely subjective?? This has been turned into a phrase in this country which basically means white, straight, and Christian. Excuse me, I have to cut this short as me and my fellow Democrats in town are preparing for our weekly pagan sex orgy. At which we explicitly talk about how we are going to destroy the nuclear family.
The democrats aren't the party that claims to sit on a high horse and preach "family values" then smile along as their champion is a guy who has cheated on all his wives, has kids with three different women and can't spell Bible.
They are in fact a party of family values not a hypocrite party. Some families have people who are are gay, or have women, or people of color. Democrats are in fact representive of more American families than Republicans are. Republicans use their family values to exclude people while Democrats are inclusive of actual families.
In what way do Democrats "encourage" single-parenthood?? Moreover, what the hell is a "family value"?? Flippant disregard for the family?? How does one "promote" family values, which, in and of themselves, are completely subjective?? This has been turned into a phrase in this country which basically means white, straight, and Christian.
Please don't forget to mention heterosexual
It's white, straight, heterosexual and Christian.
I think that is what I meant to say by straight, but maybe I am missing something. Regardless, heterosexual is what I intended to say by using the word straight.
In what way do Democrats "encourage" single-parenthood?? Moreover, what the hell is a "family value"?? Flippant disregard for the family?? How does one "promote" family values, which, in and of themselves, are completely subjective?? This has been turned into a phrase in this country which basically means white, straight, and Christian.
Please don't forget to mention heterosexual
It's white, straight, heterosexual and Christian.
And the point I was trying to make is democrats are FOR those people AND everyone else. They don't take a benign sounding phrase and use it to discriminate.
We shouldn't judge a group by the behavior of its worst members except when the other members are somehow complicit in that behavior, e.g., by excusing, denying, or ignoring it.
Art Jones's candidacy doesn't tell us anything meaningful about Republican ideology because the Illinois GOP has consistently condemned his ideas. Anthony Weiner's case doesn't show that Democrats are morally dissipated, because again, his actions were almost universally condemned.
In the cases of Moore and Gianforte, and especially in the case of Trump, I think it's much fairer to accuse the GOP of organizational complicity.
Austin Bombings. Terrorism right? Bombs killing people intending and succeeding in inflicting terror. But the kid is white and isn't a muslim so, not terrorism eh Jeff Sessions?
Apparently the kid recorded a 25-minute video confessing to building the explosive devices but allegedly not why he targeted the people he targeted.
"We are never going to be able to put a rationale behind these acts," said Austin Police Chief Brian Manley.
Well you could but you really don't want to find the answer.
The kid was apparently homeschooled by a conservative Christian family and contemplated going on a "mission trip". I guess he made it his mission to blow up people.
While attending Austin Community College the domestic terrorist wrote a blog called “Defining My Stance.” In his bio he wrote: "My name is Mark Conditt. I enjoy cycling, parkour, tennis, reading, and listening to music. I am not that politically inclined. I view myself as a conservative, but I don’t think I have enough information to defend my stance as well as it should be defended. The reasons I am taking this class is because I want to understand the US government, and I hope that it will help me clarify my stance, and then defend it."
Other blog posts written by Conditt argued against same-sex marriage, against abortion, and in favor of the death penalty.
I'm not sure what kind of stuff I'm on right now. I just had a some hazelnuts. Can hazelnuts mess with someone's head?
I read "straight". I even wrote it myself. And yet I thought that you missed to mention "heterosexual".
I think I just read only those 3 terms, "white", "straight" and "Christian" and I was having the feeling that only those 3 terms weren't enough.
Yeah, for once "cisgender" is missing!
"White, straight, cisgender, Christian" That looks better. Depending on the discussion sometimes it's favorable to include "male" into that list, but not always.
Excuse me now, I'll have to think long and hard about this "straight", "heterosexual" mix up. Damn. Hazelnuts.
I actually think when people started talking about cisgender is when some people started tuning out because it is not a common term and many people just assumed it was something else that was being made up and "forced down their throats". The moment you mention that word or intersectionality, you will immediately have every Alt-right buzzword in the book thrown in your face. It was immediately viewed as an insult rather than a description, and that's where a WHOLE lot of this anti-PC stuff started. The terms are too academic to understand and are just crappy messaging at this point. There is no ACTUAL reason to be upset about using a phrase like cisgender, which actually describes something, but it's been appropriated by the Alt-right in such a way that even uttering the phrase will get you labeled as some sort of authoritarian radical. I stick to what works and what most people can understand.
Austin Bombings. Terrorism right? Bombs killing people intending and succeeding in inflicting terror. But the kid is white and isn't a muslim so, not terrorism eh Jeff Sessions?
Apparently the kid recorded a 25-minute video confessing to building the explosive devices but allegedly not why he targeted the people he targeted.
"We are never going to be able to put a rationale behind these acts," said Austin Police Chief Brian Manley.
Well you could but you really don't want to find the answer.
The kid was apparently homeschooled by a conservative Christian family and contemplated going on a "mission trip". I guess he made it his mission to blow up people.
While attending Austin Community College the domestic terrorist wrote a blog called “Defining My Stance.” In his bio he wrote: "My name is Mark Conditt. I enjoy cycling, parkour, tennis, reading, and listening to music. I am not that politically inclined. I view myself as a conservative, but I don’t think I have enough information to defend my stance as well as it should be defended. The reasons I am taking this class is because I want to understand the US government, and I hope that it will help me clarify my stance, and then defend it."
Other blog posts written by Conditt argued against same-sex marriage, against abortion, and in favor of the death penalty.
He was LITERALLY a suicide bomber. But we all know that only Muslims can be suicide bombers, so the American media will never call him that. Oh, they will mention he committed suicide and that he set off package bombs. But they will never string together that phrase. That only applies if you have dark skin and your ancestors hail from the Middle East. Do a Google search for "Austin suicide bomber" and then look at the highlighted key words in EVERY news article on this topic. You will not see this term applied to the Austin bomber, and, I shit you not, by PAGE TWO, the hits you get will start pointing to stories about suicide bombers in AFGHANISTAN.
Austin Bombings. Terrorism right? Bombs killing people intending and succeeding in inflicting terror. But the kid is white and isn't a muslim so, not terrorism eh Jeff Sessions?
Apparently the kid recorded a 25-minute video confessing to building the explosive devices but allegedly not why he targeted the people he targeted.
"We are never going to be able to put a rationale behind these acts," said Austin Police Chief Brian Manley.
Well you could but you really don't want to find the answer.
The kid was apparently homeschooled by a conservative Christian family and contemplated going on a "mission trip". I guess he made it his mission to blow up people.
While attending Austin Community College the domestic terrorist wrote a blog called “Defining My Stance.” In his bio he wrote: "My name is Mark Conditt. I enjoy cycling, parkour, tennis, reading, and listening to music. I am not that politically inclined. I view myself as a conservative, but I don’t think I have enough information to defend my stance as well as it should be defended. The reasons I am taking this class is because I want to understand the US government, and I hope that it will help me clarify my stance, and then defend it."
Other blog posts written by Conditt argued against same-sex marriage, against abortion, and in favor of the death penalty.
He was LITERALLY a suicide bomber. But we all know that only Muslims can be suicide bombers, so the American media will never call him that. Oh, they will mention he committed suicide and that he set off package bombs. But they will never string together that phrase. That only applies if you have dark skin and your ancestors hail from the Middle East. Do a Google search for "Austin suicide bomber" and then look at the highlighted key words in EVERY news article on this topic. You will not see this term applied to the Austin bomber, and, I shit you not, by PAGE TWO, the hits you get will start pointing to stories about suicide bombers in AFGHANISTAN.
Well, to be fair he wasn't really a true suicide bomber. He didn't strap a bomb on his body and walk into a mall and blow himself and others to smithereens. He tried to kill people with bombs that weren't on his person then blew himself up when it looked like he was going to get caught. That's a big difference really...
First off, let me start by saying that this lil bomber guy in TX is a real... well, a real murderin' piece-o-work. I don't, without more evidence, yet see any real political mission statement, group association, or extremist political views that he was trying to change with the use of violence. I can't even say yet if he was a lone wolf influenced by others, or a total lone actor with NO inspiration from other groups or people what so ever. As far as his death, did he have a gun? If not, the bomb was just another way to kill himself as many often do, If he really wanted to ramp it up to the lvl of a serious suicide bomber, it seems like he would have walked into a crowded place instead of just using what was handy to kill himself to avoid capture.
It takes more than just wanting to cause fear in people to be officially be label a terrorist as opposed to a murderer. On top of that, the law has different views on domestic vs international terrorism. Terrorism, as a definition, is all over the place in what governments define it to be. And that is on the international lvl as well. At one point the US Dept of State and the FBI disagreed on the definition. Academics still argue and debate over what can be defined as terrorism. As for as labels, I don't see any reason why, if it was deemed appropriate, that the Austin bomber NOT be designated as terrorist. We still need to know his contacts, his inspirations from other groups (if any), and his general state of mind leading up to this. It takes more than bombs, guns, and a death toll to separate a murderer from a terrorist, and even then, it is not always clear, especially in regards domestic terrorism, and that is unfortunate. On a side note: ELF ( Earth Liberation Front) was designated a domestic terror threat and at one time, it was one of the biggest concerns on the domestic front. No bombs, no guns, and no deaths, just property damage. Even that was the cause of debate as to define it as terrorism or not ( It was changed to include 'just' property damage though, as they had political motivations). For the most part they tried to make sure no people were physically harmed. Who were they? White folks. No real organization and included multiple groups with only loose connections at best. The news will look to say terrorism first as it has been reported on so much as of late. As far as I know, there needs to be more of a legal definition of domestic terrorism attached WITH an appropriate federal or state criminal law. In the case of Dylan Roof in Charleston, he was worse off being charged with a hate crime as opposed to one of domestic terror (with no assigned penalty), as I don't think that many states have defined the term domestic terrorism in connection with an assigned punishment. There is a more clearly defined federal punishment and definition when it comes to international terrorism (IT). When we get to domestic, it gets a little more tricky in the eyes of the law. In my opinion, this needs to be changed to get more in line with IT. Now as to whether or not the US govt wants other countries to be able to charge US citizens with terrorism if they get involved in a debatable crime, that is another matter, IMO. With that said, most law enforcement agencies had plenty to charge this particular murderous piece-o-work with regardless of what it is called, even if he had not killed himself. It seems even his last phone message did not even allude to words that would or could be associated with either domestic terrorism or hate crimes. Maybe more clues to his intent will surface, but as a loner, of any kind, and just getting started, it may not.
I'll agree with @smeagolheart that it is not going to far to call him a terrorist, as these acts are commonly seen as, but as I mentioned earlier, unfortunately there are legal definitions and punishment that would have needed to be addressed in order to charge him with that (if he didn't go and kill himself). The killing himself part was not helpful, as I think more could have been learned about his connections or lack thereof if he were questioned at length. I'll be interested to see what more turns up on this guy, regardless of his defined status. The law needs a real overhaul when it comes to this, and it has been dragging it's heels for far too long.
I don't think disregarding family values makes ones sexual assault any more or less morally reprehensible.
Also, the fact that the Democrats aren't the party of family values is another reason why I oppose them ideologically. They do everything possible to encourage single parenthood which is a tremendous detriment to children's development, from educational standards to mental health to risk of abuse and substance abuse and poverty and more.
Their flippant disregard for the family is a flippant disregard for a healthy environment for children.
I'll probably be asked, rightly, to provide sources for my claims, so here's some.
What you provide are sources for single parenthood being a risk factor. What you do not show in any way is how Democrats do anythings to encourage single parenthood or show flippant disregard for the family. When you look at personal lives, high-ranking Republics are usually the worst offenders (i.e. Trump and Gingrich).
On the other hand, abstinence only education, making access to contraception more difficult and trying to restrict access to abortion, are all policies that lead to more single mothers. Those are all Republican positions.
EDIT: By the way, one of your links is that the highest risk of abuse for children is when living with one parent and a new partner. It is riskier than living with the single parent alone. Given how often step-parents and sometimes also step-siblings turn out to be the abuser, this is not a huge surprise to me. Intuitively, I am tempted to claim that by cultural preferences Republicans seem more likely to prefer a single mother to find a husband, but I would need to look that up. Maybe I have time for that later.
When you look at personal lives, high-ranking Republics are usually the worst offenders (i.e. Trump and Gingrich).
I think the fact that Trump is by far the most blatantly crass and vulgar of the lot may give that impression, but I'm not certain that is true by the numbers. You have Clinton and Kennedy as presidents with problematic personal lives who did not take their marriage vows seriously. Plus, the very worst of all of them was Jon Edwards.
I doubt that there is any link between mainstream political philosophies and propensity to be a scoundrel. Maybe there is a link between being personally powerful and depraved behavior. There has been some studies that indicated a possible link between personal power and loss of empathy https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2017/07/power-causes-brain-damage/528711/
I reread the above article when the #metoo stuff started happening, and it definitely gave me an interesting perspective. I'd recommend it.
Comments
My vote would be for Chris Chelios played for the Blackhawks for the entire 90s and was captain from 95-99 as well as captianing US's international team during the Winter Olympics and is in the Hockey Hall of Fame. He also grew up in Chicago, started charities there. Slam Dunk.
Jeremy Roenick is another option. Known Republican and supporter of Trump, but I prefer Chelli.
1.) Physically assaulted a reporter on the night before Election Day.
2.) Was credibly accused of being a child predator.
3.) A self-proclaimed Nazi.
On top of that, the reason Conor Lamb even had a race to run in last week was because Representative Tim Murphy, staunchly pro-life, was revealed to have pressured a mistress to seek an abortion during a pregnancy scare and resigned. Whatever else these things may or may not tell us, the optics are atrocious.
remaining as a member of an organization that tacitly endorses such unamerican deviancy for gross political gain looks pretty deplorable to me.
Still, I just looked it up and Trump's approval rating is 82% for Republican voters this month.
Even then these guys vote for his agenda 99% of the time. He has near universal voting support for every hare brained lie and deplorable policy.
However, first, Democrats aren't the "party of family values".
And second, these people resigned when the allegations came out.
The Republican candidates not only NOT resigned their candidacies, but they brazenly carried on, and one of those was STILL elected.
If there is justice, this pro-Nazi candidate will go down in flames as Moore did.
Edit-Just to be clear, I'm not saying Democrats condone sexual assault, but there's a difference when you brand, BRAND your party as EXPLICITLY against the things that you then, in turn, have members conducting.
Like the Republican who DID resign because he had his mistress get an abortion. Oops.
Trump's been accused by more than a dozen women of sexual assault. And as far as I know, there are no nazis and neo-nazis that are running as democrats but the whole white supremacy vote seems to be a bloc of the Republican party. Like the old radical right, now we got the alt-right.
Also, the fact that the Democrats aren't the party of family values is another reason why I oppose them ideologically. They do everything possible to encourage single parenthood which is a tremendous detriment to children's development, from educational standards to mental health to risk of abuse and substance abuse and poverty and more.
Their flippant disregard for the family is a flippant disregard for a healthy environment for children.
I'll probably be asked, rightly, to provide sources for my claims, so here's some.
https://www.acf.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/opre/nis4_report_congress_full_pdf_jan2010.pdf
https://aspe.hhs.gov/basic-report/information-poverty-and-income-statistics-summary-2012-current-population-survey-data
Also, the fact that the Democrats aren't the party of family values is another reason why I oppose them ideologically. They do everything possible to encourage single parenthood which is a tremendous detriment to children's development, from educational standards to mental health to risk of abuse and substance abuse and poverty and more.
Their flippant disregard for the family is a flippant disregard for a healthy environment for children.
I'll probably be asked, rightly, to provide sources for my claims, so here's some.
https://www.acf.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/opre/nis4_report_congress_full_pdf_jan2010.pdf
https://aspe.hhs.gov/basic-report/information-poverty-and-income-statistics-summary-2012-current-population-survey-data
In what way do Democrats "encourage" single-parenthood?? Moreover, what the hell is a "family value"?? Flippant disregard for the family?? How does one "promote" family values, which, in and of themselves, are completely subjective?? This has been turned into a phrase in this country which basically means white, straight, and Christian. Excuse me, I have to cut this short as me and my fellow Democrats in town are preparing for our weekly pagan sex orgy. At which we explicitly talk about how we are going to destroy the nuclear family.
They are in fact a party of family values not a hypocrite party. Some families have people who are are gay, or have women, or people of color. Democrats are in fact representive of more American families than Republicans are. Republicans use their family values to exclude people while Democrats are inclusive of actual families.
Art Jones's candidacy doesn't tell us anything meaningful about Republican ideology because the Illinois GOP has consistently condemned his ideas. Anthony Weiner's case doesn't show that Democrats are morally dissipated, because again, his actions were almost universally condemned.
In the cases of Moore and Gianforte, and especially in the case of Trump, I think it's much fairer to accuse the GOP of organizational complicity.
Austin Bombings. Terrorism right? Bombs killing people intending and succeeding in inflicting terror. But the kid is white and isn't a muslim so, not terrorism eh Jeff Sessions?
Apparently the kid recorded a 25-minute video confessing to building the explosive devices but allegedly not why he targeted the people he targeted.
"We are never going to be able to put a rationale behind these acts," said Austin Police Chief Brian Manley.
Well you could but you really don't want to find the answer.
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/progressivesecularhumanist/2018/03/austin-bomber-was-conservative-christian-homeschool-graduate/#p64oVrZCbJXv7Fuy.99
The kid was apparently homeschooled by a conservative Christian family and contemplated going on a "mission trip". I guess he made it his mission to blow up people.
While attending Austin Community College the domestic terrorist wrote a blog called “Defining My Stance.” In his bio he wrote:
"My name is Mark Conditt. I enjoy cycling, parkour, tennis, reading, and listening to music. I am not that politically inclined. I view myself as a conservative, but I don’t think I have enough information to defend my stance as well as it should be defended. The reasons I am taking this class is because I want to understand the US government, and I hope that it will help me clarify my stance, and then defend it."
Other blog posts written by Conditt argued against same-sex marriage, against abortion, and in favor of the death penalty.
As far as his death, did he have a gun? If not, the bomb was just another way to kill himself as many often do, If he really wanted to ramp it up to the lvl of a serious suicide bomber, it seems like he would have walked into a crowded place instead of just using what was handy to kill himself to avoid capture.
It takes more than just wanting to cause fear in people to be officially be label a terrorist as opposed to a murderer. On top of that, the law has different views on domestic vs international terrorism. Terrorism, as a definition, is all over the place in what governments define it to be. And that is on the international lvl as well. At one point the US Dept of State and the FBI disagreed on the definition. Academics still argue and debate over what can be defined as terrorism.
As for as labels, I don't see any reason why, if it was deemed appropriate, that the Austin bomber NOT be designated as terrorist. We still need to know his contacts, his inspirations from other groups (if any), and his general state of mind leading up to this.
It takes more than bombs, guns, and a death toll to separate a murderer from a terrorist, and even then, it is not always clear, especially in regards domestic terrorism, and that is unfortunate.
On a side note:
ELF ( Earth Liberation Front) was designated a domestic terror threat and at one time, it was one of the biggest concerns on the domestic front. No bombs, no guns, and no deaths, just property damage. Even that was the cause of debate as to define it as terrorism or not ( It was changed to include 'just' property damage though, as they had political motivations). For the most part they tried to make sure no people were physically harmed.
Who were they? White folks. No real organization and included multiple groups with only loose connections at best.
The news will look to say terrorism first as it has been reported on so much as of late. As far as I know, there needs to be more of a legal definition of domestic terrorism attached WITH an appropriate federal or state criminal law. In the case of Dylan Roof in Charleston, he was worse off being charged with a hate crime as opposed to one of domestic terror (with no assigned penalty), as I don't think that many states have defined the term domestic terrorism in connection with an assigned punishment.
There is a more clearly defined federal punishment and definition when it comes to international terrorism (IT). When we get to domestic, it gets a little more tricky in the eyes of the law. In my opinion, this needs to be changed to get more in line with IT. Now as to whether or not the US govt wants other countries to be able to charge US citizens with terrorism if they get involved in a debatable crime, that is another matter, IMO.
With that said, most law enforcement agencies had plenty to charge this particular murderous piece-o-work with regardless of what it is called, even if he had not killed himself. It seems even his last phone message did not even allude to words that would or could be associated with either domestic terrorism or hate crimes. Maybe more clues to his intent will surface, but as a loner, of any kind, and just getting started, it may not.
I'll agree with @smeagolheart that it is not going to far to call him a terrorist, as these acts are commonly seen as, but as I mentioned earlier, unfortunately there are legal definitions and punishment that would have needed to be addressed in order to charge him with that (if he didn't go and kill himself). The killing himself part was not helpful, as I think more could have been learned about his connections or lack thereof if he were questioned at length.
I'll be interested to see what more turns up on this guy, regardless of his defined status.
On the other hand, abstinence only education, making access to contraception more difficult and trying to restrict access to abortion, are all policies that lead to more single mothers. Those are all Republican positions.
EDIT: By the way, one of your links is that the highest risk of abuse for children is when living with one parent and a new partner. It is riskier than living with the single parent alone. Given how often step-parents and sometimes also step-siblings turn out to be the abuser, this is not a huge surprise to me. Intuitively, I am tempted to claim that by cultural preferences Republicans seem more likely to prefer a single mother to find a husband, but I would need to look that up. Maybe I have time for that later.
I doubt that there is any link between mainstream political philosophies and propensity to be a scoundrel. Maybe there is a link between being personally powerful and depraved behavior. There has been some studies that indicated a possible link between personal power and loss of empathy https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2017/07/power-causes-brain-damage/528711/
I reread the above article when the #metoo stuff started happening, and it definitely gave me an interesting perspective. I'd recommend it.