Support NeoGAF

[The Technomancer]

Just think about what you're saying here for, like, two seconds.

You have a right to a state appointed attorney if you do not have one already. In this analogy they have their own. They don't need our help.

 

[Timedog]

Terrorists.

 

[j_k_redtail]

Where do we draw the line between "shame" and "here's why I think donating is a bad idea, I hope you understand my reasoning and agree"? Because I was going for the latter.

Again, not specifically you - I'm referring to the posts above your own, which imply that donating to this is some kind of moral crime.

 

[The Technomancer]

Again, not specifically you - I'm referring to the posts above your own, which imply that donating to this is some kind of moral crime.

It saves them money they will then demonstrably use to harm other people

 

[KHarvey16]

You have a right to a state appointed attorney if you do not have one already. In this analogy they have their own. They don't need our help.

But making them use funds to pay for this is disadvantaging them completely outside the normal, acceptable process of democracy. Accepting this handicap or being glad it happened is absolutely legitimizing violence as a means of political action. And I'm sorry but "well they suppress democracy so I'm cool with it happening to them" should not be an acceptable response.

 

[Slackerish]

I personally think it's unwise and ineffective to reach out in the name of democracy to people who seemingly don't believe in democracy. (Based on rhetoric about jailing the opposition if they win and the election being rigged if they lose.)

This was a GOP building, not a Trump-Pence? Not all GOP wants to jail the opposition and saying the election is being rigged if they lose.

 

[VendettaRed07]

It saves them money they will then demonstrably use to harm other people

It isn't saving anything

It's replacing the damages for a firebombing that shouldn't have happened.

 

[The Technomancer]

But making them use funds to pay for this is disadvantaging them completely outside the normal, acceptable process of democracy. Accepting this handicap or being glad it happened is absolutely legitimizing violence as a means of political action. And I'm sorry but "well they suppress democracy so I'm cool with it happening to them" should not be an acceptable response.

So what is the acceptable response to suppression of democracy? Beyond the bounds of this specific example, since a democratic result is still feasible. Lets say, hypothetically, democratic suppression becomes so great that democratic change is impossible. Is violence justified then?

 

[Iksenpets]

Compromise position: Giving money to help rebuild in the name of solidarity and civility is ok, but anyone doing so should make matching donations to LGBT/voting rights/Democratic groups to make up for the fact that the GOP is bad. Would that make up for it?

 

[Orayn]

This was a GOP building, not a Trump-Pence? Not all GOP wants to jail the opposition and saying the election is being rigged if they lose.

The pictures they posted on Twitter showed Trump/Pence signs inside the building.

 

[sphagnum]

This was a GOP building, not a Trump-Pence? Not all GOP wants to jail the opposition and saying the election is being rigged if they lose.

Until the RNC and state parties disown Trump, they all must be held accountable as one force.

The NC GOP is shit anyway.

 

[PopeReal]

I do not condone violence but I will never donate money to the current form of the GOP.

 

[KHarvey16]

So what is the acceptable response to suppression of democracy? Beyond the bounds of this specific example, since a democratic result is still feasible. Lets say, hypothetically, democratic suppression becomes so great that democratic change is impossible. Is violence justified then?

An acceptable response is rejection in any form you feel comfortable with. That could be simply holding the opinion that it's wrong or donating money or activism or whatever. Certainly supporting or accepting or participating in reciprocating that suppression is not.

As for your hypothetical, maybe. But that certainly isn't the case now and the speed at which these funds were raised gives me hope it won't be any time soon.

 

[sonicmj1]

I do not condone violence but I will never donate money to the current form of the GOP.

That is a perfectly valid and moral stance. It's not a question any of us need to answer anymore, since the GoFundMe met its goals and has now stopped accepting further donations. It's there to compensate, not to give a windfall.

My earlier posts in the thread are opposed to the idea that compensating for the damage caused by the firebombing is immoral.

 

[Box]

There are a lot of other wrongs to be righted I think belong higher on the list, quite frankly. And that's what this boils down to to me. I am staggered by the priorities on display here. Floored that people had money and chose, out of all the causes in need, to pick this one.

I don't think its invoking "children in Africa" to maybe wonder if a suicide hotline for transgender people that saw a 200% increase in calls in the wake of recent developments in North Carolina might have more use for funds than a political office dedicated to hating them

Well if you prioritize winning the culture war over preserving peace and democracy then I expect you will find there are many people who have different priorities.

 

[Amir0x]

My opinion is that i think giving money is fine if that is what your conscience tells you to do. Its be better if you knew the money would only go toward fixing the building and not the party itself though.

My opinion is that i wish they werent firebombed, but i dont even want to be a part of helping rebuild the infrastructure of hate that allows this gross group of politicians to pass laws against transgender individuals. To me it makes it easier for them to do so. My conscience on that is stronger than my ability to feel bad that someone inappropriately burnt down their building.

Nothing is gonna end in civil war and being a bit ugly during an unprecedented campaign run by wannabe white supremacists isnt going to set off some cycle of neverending war.

 

[Condom]

The GOP is fine with acting out violently against minority groups or bombing countries to smitherreens and their base applauds it.

 

[stupei]

To be clear, I'm not suggesting everyone should donate or that it's wrong not to donate. Partly because of the same reasons you outlined, I didn't and won't donate. I'm arguing against people that are suggesting dems shouldn't have started this gofundme because they can only see it as helping the GOP. Donating is a personal choice (as you seem to agree), but suggesting nobody should right this wrong is simply condoning it (you don't seem to be making this argument, but others are). If someone says the GOP doesn't deserve to be bombed, they can't turn around and argue the GOP deserves the outcome of the bombing, which is what these people are effectively suggesting.

Fair. I think we mostly agree. Painting the donations as immoral is obviously an unfair stretch but it also felt a little reductionist to suggest that anyone who dislikes the idea of donations would implicitly be approving of the act of violence.

I doubt that a financial setback was the primary goal, so I'm not sure you could say that not raising donations would mean they were facing the consequences or intended outcome of the bombing. Generally with this kind of thing, the intention is terror and fear. Money does not necessarily negate that particular outcome nor is it the only means of countering it. I'm more interested in seeing how the local DNC branches reach out and react after this.

Of course money is the most obvious and readily available means of showing support or rejection of an action, but it's harder to wrap my head around financial donations to an opposing political party who I would tend to assume would have many means of financial recourse after this. Maybe I'm mistaken, but I'd think insurance would cover a lot of this. The money, in the end, feels more symbolic than anything and that's why it's easy to think that it could be put to greater use elsewhere.

 

[sphagnum]

Well if you prioritize winning the culture war over preserving peace and democracy then I expect you will find there are many people who have different priorities.

The reason we are having trouble preserving democracy is because the other side has not yet given in on the culture war. They are incredibly reactionary and running open authoritarians for office now.

 

[LudicrousSpeed]

Insurance is an absolutely ridiculous justification and your insinuations are completely out of line.

Would you like to expound, or are you trying to keep this to quip length? Literally, the outcome of this stupid fundraiser is going to be a NC GOP that has more money to campaign with than they would otherwise.

Bad shit happens some times, and some times folks need a hand up. But an entity like the NC GOP is big enough that it, with near certainty, has taken steps to cover themselves in the event of some shit like this, and the only thing those donations are doing is making sure that the NC GOP will be able to do more harm between now and election day.

This is just liberal guilt manifesting, of people jumping to a conclusion and wanting to make a show of washing their hands of it any of it as if they actually had anything to do with it when they absolutely didn't. If it were going to a more harmless target, hey, whatever, it's your money to blow. But when the end result is a hate group having more resources than they had before, you don't get to escape criticism for your role in amplifying their hate.

 

[Laughing Banana]

The GOP is fine with acting out violently against minority groups or bombing countries to smitherreens and their base applauds it.

Sounds like you're cheering on the ones that do the firebombing and want to pat them on the back or something.

 

[Box]

The reason we are having trouble preserving democracy is because the other side has not yet given in on the culture war. They are incredibly reactionary and running open authoritarians for office now.

Well there you go then. There are some people who see winning a political battle as the ultimate end. And then there is everyone else who are, above all else, opposed to people blowing things up.

 

[Crash Station]

So is everyone that donates essentially Palmer Luckey?

Having a moral aversion to donating is fine, but to then accuse those that do donate as "not progressive" is pretty damn condescending.

 

[USC-fan]

Would you like to expound, or are you trying to keep this to quip length? Literally, the outcome of this stupid fundraiser is going to be a NC GOP that has more money to campaign with than they would otherwise.

Bad shit happens some times, and some times folks need a hand up. But an entity like the NC GOP is big enough that it, with near certainty, has taken steps to cover themselves in the event of some shit like this, and the only thing those donations are doing is making sure that the NC GOP will be able to do more harm between now and election day.

This is just liberal guilt manifesting, of people jumping to a conclusion and wanting to make a show of washing their hands of it any of it as if they actually had anything to do with it when they absolutely didn't. If it were going to a more harmless target, hey, whatever, it's your money to blow. But when the end result is a hate group having more resources than they had before, you don't get to escape criticism for your role in amplifying their hate.

Seem you can make that same agruement against donating to a church that was firebomb.

 

[KHarvey16]

Would you like to expound, or are you trying to keep this to quip length? Literally, the outcome of this stupid fundraiser is going to be a NC GOP that has more money to campaign with than they would otherwise.

Bad shit happens some times, and some times folks need a hand up. But an entity like the NC GOP is big enough that it, with near certainty, has taken steps to cover themselves in the event of some shit like this, and the only thing those donations are doing is making sure that the NC GOP will be able to do more harm between now and election day.

This is just liberal guilt manifesting, of people jumping to a conclusion and wanting to make a show of washing their hands of it any of it as if they actually had anything to do with it when they absolutely didn't. If it were going to a more harmless target, hey, whatever, it's your money to blow. But when the end result is a hate group having more resources than they had before, you don't get to escape criticism for your role in amplifying their hate.

The independent group who took the donations will be helping with the rebuilding. The few dollars they managed to raise will be used for that purpose. Insurance is not a magic word that removes every cost and makes this all ok. If your assertion is that this will add to the bottom line of the GOP instead of making them whole again, your position stands in direct contradiction with everything we know at this point.

You are working very hard to convince yourself it's ok to insinuate that those donating are stupid, racist, bigoted or all three.

 

[sphagnum]

So is everyone that donates essentially Palmer Luckey?

Having a moral aversion to donating is fine, but to then accuse those that do donate as "not progressive" is pretty damn condescending.

*Nazi office gets burned down*
Those rascally communists! I think I'll donate to the Nazi reconstruction efforts because they're allowed in a democracy and it's the right thing to do.
*provides material aid to Nazis, who in turn destroy democracy*

I think I'm fine with being condescending.

 

[LudicrousSpeed]

Seem you can make that same agruement against donating to a church that was firebomb.

You can if the church is actually a spigot of hate. Like, if someone blew up the Westboro Baptist Church, then, yeah, this would apply pretty similarly, and I would apply the same thing to them.

Most churches are not that, and most churches actually provide a service to the community.

The independent group who took the donations will be helping with the rebuilding. The few dollars they managed to raise will be used for that purpose. Insurance is not a magic word that removes every cost and makes this all ok. If your assertion is that this will add to the bottom line of the GOP instead of making them whole again, your position stands in direct contradiction with everything we know at this point.

You are working very hard to convince yourself it's ok to insinuate that those donating are stupid, racist, bigoted or all three.

I'm sorry, do you actually have some evidence that these donations will only be used to make the GOP whole wherever their insurance falls short and not allow them to divert one cent of their insurance money into the campaign funds? Because you speak as if you have some assurance on this front, and, frankly, I'm very curious as to how you think this is guaranteed.

Because if you have that, then I'd downgrade the people making these donations to "naive and foolish" from "actively harmful to society".

 

[KHarvey16]

*Nazi office gets burned down*
Those rascally communists! I think I'll donate to the Nazi reconstruction efforts because they're allowed in a democracy and it's the right thing to do.
*provides material aid to Nazis, who in turn destroy democracy*

I think I'm fine with being condescending.

You're much better at being condescending than you are at knowing history.

 

[Stinkles]

Do you imagine people, with their wallets out, walking into a room toward two collection boxes - one labelled "rebuild GOP hate factory" and the other labelled "save puppies"? This reductive either or type false dilemma nonsense is usually saved for discussions about NASA and why space is dumb, save the whales.

I can't help but feel partial "space is Dumb" resposibilty

 

[BigDes]

If space is so smart how come if hasn't thrown is all into The Sun?

Checkmate spaceiests.

 

[Macam]

For purely selfish reasons, it should be done because it shows the other side is better than them.

Once again, even if you disagree with it, the PR boost is better for the democrats than the money the GOP is actually getting out of it especially if turns out it was a democrat that did it.

PR boost, lol. Good luck with that; diehard Republicans will never hear the story, nor care. NC is a competitive state and one most in need of rebalancing towards sanity, at the national and state level.

People can do what they wish with their money, but I'd sooner donate to hurricane relief efforts in the state or to the Red Cross and relief efforts in Haiti than spend one dime towards a party that, among other things, doesn't need the money anyway.

 

[KHarvey16]

I'm sorry, do you actually have some evidence that these donations will only be used to make the GOP whole wherever their insurance falls short and not allow them to divert one cent of their insurance money into the campaign funds? Because you speak as if you have some assurance on this front, and, frankly, I'm very curious as to how you think this is guaranteed.

Because if you have that, then I'd downgrade the people making these donations to "naive and foolish" and not "actively harmful to society".

The group only took the donations to work on rebuilding. Spending it on anything else would be fraud, as it almost assuredly would be to claim to insurance that you spent x on fixing the building when you really spent y and pocketed the extra money.

Either way if your position is that people might be dishonest then your argument is not with those donating.

Condescension seems to be a theme.

I can't help but feel partial "space is Dumb" resposibilty

It's all your fault Stinkles.

 

[Macam]

So is everyone that donates essentially Palmer Luckey?

Having a moral aversion to donating is fine, but to then accuse those that do donate as "not progressive" is pretty damn condescending.

This whole election has been condescending, so at least there's been consistency.

 

[sphagnum]

You're much better at being condescending than you are at knowing history.

That wasn't meant to be a representation of the Reichstag fire.

 

[LudicrousSpeed]

The group only took the donations to work on rebuilding. Spending it on anything else would be fraud, as it almost assuredly would be to claim to insurance that you spent x on fixing the building when you really spent y and pocketed the extra money.

Either way if your position is that people might be dishonest then your argument is not with those donating.

Condescension seems to be a theme.

This isn't how insurance works. Insurance is going to assess the loss, come up with a dollar figure, and give the GOP the money to rebuild.

So if the insurer comes and looks at the loss and determines it's going to cost the GOP $25,000 to replace and rebuild, then they're going to get a check for $25,000. Whether they choose to actually replace and rebuild or just pocket the insurance money is 100% up to the NC GOP.

If, say, a bunch of idiots decided to run a crowdfunding campaign and raise $13,000 in rebuilding expenses, even if an independent entity that managed this ensured every last dime went to actually rebuilding, none of this impacts what the insured policy holder is going to get from their insurance policy. The insurance payout isn't going to suddenly shrink from $25,000 to $12,000 just because a bunch of people donated $13,000 towards rebuilding efforts.

 

[Box]

I think to figure out where you stand on this you have to ask yourself: Who is the bigger political opponent here? Is it the GOP or is it people who want to use violence to destroy them?

Opposing and trying to undo the effects of a bomber isn't good will to the GOP. It's recognizing the larger political threat and trying to stop it. The GOP may be the more present threat right now, but letting this go is a slippery slope. You have to send a clear message to people who want to use violence that it won't work and that they can't martyr themselves in order to deal financial damage to political opponents.

 

[KHarvey16]

This isn't how insurance works. Insurance is going to assess the loss, come up with a dollar figure, and give the GOP the money to rebuild.

So if the insurer comes and looks at the loss and determines it's going to cost the GOP $25,000 to replace and rebuild, then they're going to get a check for $25,000. Whether they choose to actually replace and rebuild or just pocket the insurance money is 100% up to the NC GOP.

If, say, a bunch of idiots decided to run a crowdfunding campaign and raise $13,000 in rebuilding expenses, and even if an independent entity that managed this ensured every last dime went to actually rebuilding, none of this impacts what the insured policy holder is going to get from their insurance policy. The insurance payout isn't going to suddenly shrink from $25,000 to $12,000 just because a bunch of people donated $13,000 towards rebuilding efforts.

That depends entirely on the policy and how claims are paid. The coverage may not cover the entire cost or the insurance company may require receipts and proof of payment. Obviously costs paid for by this group would not be a part of that.

If it turns out no additional funds are required I would expect this group would not simply hand them a check. Some form of collaboration will take place and given the steps they took to make it clear the GOP would not be given the funds I'm sure the proper questions will be asked.

Again your argument relies on people being dishonest.

 

[Koomaster]

oh jfc why are people donating money to help out with this. They had insurance money. They had campaign funds. They're fucking fine. The money will go towards helping the hateful NC GOP agenda

Consider donating to either of these instead

translifeline.org/donate/

transgenderlawcenter.org/donate

Agree, this isn't some family whose home burned down, it's a hate group which is more than capable of rebuilding shit on their own with the money other hateful individuals already donate to them. I don't condone what happened, but that doesn't mean I have to dig in my wallet for $10 to support them and show I'm the better guy.

Donate to real causes and people who need your support WAY more than the GOP for gods sake.

 

[LudicrousSpeed]

That depends entirely on the policy and how claims are paid. The coverage may not cover the entire cost or the insurance company may require receipts and proof of payment. Obviously costs paid for by this group would not be a part of that.

If it turns out no additional funds are required I would expect this group would not simply hand them a check. Some form of collaboration will take place and given the steps they took to make it clear the GOP would not be given the funds I'm sure the proper questions will be asked.

Again your argument relies on people being dishonest.

You're not going to find an insurance company that requires receipts and proof of payment in this sort of scenario. That's not how insurance of this sort works.

I have renter's insurance on my apartment. If my apartment building burns to the ground, I present to the insurance company documentation on all the stuff inside the apartment. They look over my information, do further research, come up with a valuation on all my things, and then cut me a check for everything that was lost. No one is going to come after me if I get paid $300 for a PS4 that burned in the fire and then I decide afterwards that I'm not going to replace that PS4. In fact, the insurance company isn't going to give a damn if I take my entire insurance check and use it to buy plane tickets to Vegas and spend every last remaining dime of it at the craps table.

If you have home insurance, and your home burns to the ground, the insurance company is going to determine what your loss is and cut you a check for that amount. It may be enough to buy a new house, it may not. But if it is enough to buy a new house, and you decide instead that you don't want to buy a new house and would rather rent an apartment and try to live off that insurance check, there is nothing fraudulent about doing that.

There is nothing "dishonest" about any of these scenarios. No one in any of them is going to go to jail for insurance fraud because they used their insurance money to not just rebuy the goods they had or to buy a new house.

I'm not and never have been saying that the crowdfunding venture is going to just cut a check to the GOP. What I'm saying is that if that venture pays for $13,000 worth of construction, then the only way that the GOP isn't getting a material gain from those donations is if their insurance company leaves them with a shortfall of at least $13,000.

 

[Macam]

I think to figure out where you stand on this you have to ask yourself: Who is the bigger political opponent here? Is it the GOP or is it people who want to use violence to destroy them?

Opposing and trying to undo the effects of a bomber isn't good will to the GOP. It's recognizing the larger political threat and trying to stop it. The GOP may be the more present threat right now, but letting this go is a slippery slope. You have to send a clear message to people who want to use violence that it won't work and that they can't martyr themselves in order to deal financial damage to political opponents.

This is silly and doesn't logically hold water. Firebombing isn't a political threat, it's a physical one. Nor does donating money to rebuild deter further firebombing; arguably, you're just rebuilding the target in case they want to do it again.

I don't care if people choose to donate or not, but let's at least make better arguments than this,

 

[KHarvey16]

You're not going to find an insurance company that requires receipts and proof of payment in this sort of scenario. That's not how insurance of this sort works.

I have renter's insurance on my apartment. If my apartment building burns to the ground, I present to the insurance company documentation on all the stuff inside the apartment. They look over my information, do further research, come up with a valuation on all my things, and then cut me a check for everything that was lost. No one is going to come after me if I get paid $300 for a PS4 that burned in the fire and then I decide afterwards that I'm not going to replace that PS4. In fact, the insurance company isn't going to give a damn if I take my entire insurance check and use it to buy plane tickets to Vegas and spend every last remaining dime of it at the craps table.

If you have home insurance, and your home burns to the ground, the insurance company is going to determine what your loss is and cut you a check for that amount. It may be enough to buy a new house, it may not. But if it is enough to buy a new house, and you decide instead that you don't want to buy a new house and would rather rent an apartment and try to live off that insurance check, there is nothing fraudulent about doing that.

There is nothing "dishonest" about any of these scenarios. No one in any of them is going to go to jail for insurance fraud because they used their insurance money to not just rebuy the goods they had or to buy a new house.

I'm not and never have been saying that the crowdfunding venture is going to just cut a check to the GOP. What I'm saying is that if that venture pays for $13,000 worth of construction, then the only way that the GOP isn't getting a material gain from those donations is if their insurance company leaves them with a shortfall of at least $13,000.

It would be dishonest for the group to spend its money on things the GOP was already paid for.

Your position again though makes a lot of assumptions about who owns what and what the insurance actually covers and how they cover it (there are certainly cases where insurance does not allow "cashing out").

It's also true that making claims for insurance payouts isn't free in any sense, and could put them in a position where rates go up or policies are cancelled(either because they've had other claims for non-violent acts or because they will in the future). The idea that using insurance means no ill effects is wrong.

 

[Box]

This is silly and doesn't logically hold water. Firebombing isn't a political threat, it's a physical one. Nor does donating money to rebuild deter further firebombing; arguably, you're just rebuilding the target in case they want to do it again.

I don't care if people choose to donate or not, but let's at least make better arguments than this,

Maybe I mangled some words and that's why you're confused. This kind of bombing is a political action. The people who support this political position, one that advocates violence against opponents, are worse than the GOP. So the priority is to try to counter this political action before those of the GOP.

I know that GAF is probably 50/50 on whether the bomber in this scenario is actually worse than the GOP, but I would strongly advocate against violence and attempts to disrupt democracy.

And I disagree that having liberals donate to undo the damage doesn't deter politically motivated attacks. I don't want anyone to make the calculation that they can do damage to the GOP's political efforts by using violence against people or property. That's what the donations protect against.

 

[LudicrousSpeed]

It would be dishonest for the group to spend its money on things the GOP was already paid for.

Welcome to the heart of my argument for why these donations are harmful.

Your position again though makes a lot of assumptions about who owns what and what the insurance actually covers and how they cover it (there are certainly cases where insurance does not allow "cashing out").

It's also true that making claims for insurance payouts isn't free in any sense, and could put them in a position where rates go up or policies are cancelled(either because they've had other claims for non-violent acts or because they will in the future). The idea that using insurance means no ill effects is wrong.

My argument combines an actual working knowledge of how this works from having multiple family members with careers in the insurance field, and combines that with the fact that none of the assurances you seemed to be so ready to make are real.

Yep, their insurance rates might go up. Yep, it's possible that this incident could be the final straw that gets their insurance cancelled. I will lose not a moment of sleep if either of these things happen as a result of what happened to their office. It's terrible and, in fact, criminal what has happened to their office, and I hope the person involved is caught and convicted, but, to be frank, shit happens. The NC GOP are big boys, and they can deal with the fallout from this incident. They are not a charity case, and I'm not one bit bothered that right now that they're down an office.

I would compare it to when Justice Scalia died. I'm never happy that any one person is dead, but I can be happy that Scalia will no longer be able to use his influence to push his own hateful agenda on the world. I sure as hell am not going to waste even one moment feeling sorry for the GOP that they're no longer able to command a majority on the Supreme Court in his absence. And I'm definitely not going to lobby President Obama that the next Supreme Court justice needs to follow Scalia's lead, because, man, it sure sucks that the GOP lost some of their power just because a guy died in his sleep.

 

[KHarvey16]

Welcome to the heart of my argument for why these donations are harmful.



My argument combines an actual working knowledge of how this works from having multiple family members with careers in the insurance field, and combines that with the fact that none of the assurances you seemed to be so ready to make are real.

Yep, their insurance rates might go up. Yep, it's possible that this incident could be the final straw that gets their insurance cancelled. I will lose not a moment of sleep if either of these things happen as a result of what happened to their office. It's terrible and, in fact, criminal what has happened to their office, and I hope the person involved is caught and convicted, but, to be frank, shit happens. The NC GOP are big boys, and they can deal with the fallout from this incident. They are not a charity case, and I'm not one bit bothered that right now that they're down an office.

I would compare it to when Justice Scalia died. I'm never happy that any one person is dead, but I can be happy that Scalia will no longer be able to use his influence to push his own hateful agenda on the world. I sure as hell am not going to waste even one moment feeling sorry for the GOP that they're no longer able to command a majority on the Supreme Court in his absence. And I'm definitely not going to lobby President Obama that the next Supreme Court justice needs to follow Scalia's lead, because, man, it sure sucks that the GOP lost some of their power just because a guy died in his sleep.

Scalia died a natural death. And there isn't any comparable remedy for death like there is for replacing a building. Terrible comparison.

The donations are meant to remove any consequences arising from the firebombing. Those donating believe a peaceful, civil democratic process is important and that no benefit should be gained from acts such as these.

Or maybe they're just secret racists or dumb and naive. Whatever childish simplification helps you feel more superior I suppose.

 

[Monocle]

Firebombing is unequivocally wrong, and I wish it hadn't happened. At the same time, the GOP's socially regressive efforts are far more damaging—damaging to people, not property. Specifically, the millions of innocent people whose lives are made demonstrably worse by conservative politicians.

As a person with a conscience, and one of the minorities the GOP loves to villify and victimize, let me just say I'm glad I don't have to contribute to rebuilding part of their apparatus of bigotry.

 

[Deleted member 125677]

Trump's statements are fucking disgusting.

Investigations has just begun, and he's already firmly blaming Hillary and the democrats. Fucking scumbag. It's like he wants a civil war or something.

 

[Cymbal Head]

Not sure I could come up with a more outlandish parody of self-defeating liberal sanctimony if I tried.

I'm going to venture a guess that the end result of this fund raising effort will be a 0% increase in democracy, a 0% increase in civility, and a 100% increase in donors' feelings of smug self-satisfaction for being more enlightened than the other side.

 

[RobotNinjaHornets]

Hey pro-tip fascism is bad and should not be supported in any way, including helping to fix their fucking offices

 

[maquiladora]

Trump's statements are fucking disgusting.

Investigations has just begun, and he's already firmly blaming Hillary and the democrats. Fucking scumbag. It's like he wants a civil war or something.

I'm actually terrified of some fake document being "Leaked" in the coming days that will somehow be used to show that this was encouraged or celebrated by the Clinton campaign.

 

[kitchenmotors]

*Nazi office gets burned down*
Those rascally communists! I think I'll donate to the Nazi reconstruction efforts because they're allowed in a democracy and it's the right thing to do.
*provides material aid to Nazis, who in turn destroy democracy*

I think I'm fine with being condescending.

I was thinking the same thing. NC GOP is shit, I'll continue to be condescending.