HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » MadDAsHell » Journal
Page: 1


Profile Information

Member since: Wed Nov 5, 2014, 11:56 AM
Number of posts: 2,067

Journal Archives

OSU Attack Suspect Identified as Abdul Razak Ali Artan: Officials

Source: ABC News

The man suspected in an attack at Ohio State University today has been identified as Abdul Razak Ali Artan, according to law enforcement officials. The officials confirmed Artan's identity as authorities conducted a search of an address in Columbus, Ohio, that was associated with Artan in public records.

School officials said this morning's attack on the OSU campus began when the assailant drove a vehicle into several people, then exited the vehicle and began slashing at them with a knife.

A police officer near the scene responded almost immediately, shooting and killing the attacker within about a minute of the beginning of the attack. Several of the knife attack victims have been treated at nearby hospitals and are expected to survive.

Sources told ABC News that the man is of Somali descent and is a legal permanent resident in the United States. Sources said authorities believe they have found at least one posting from the attacker on Facebook, with one source saying information being collected indicates he made what was described as a "declaration" on Facebook expressing some sort of grievances over attacks on Muslims.

Read more: http://abcnews.go.com/US/osu-attack-suspect-identified-abdul-razak-ali-artan/story?id=43827435

Ugh...awful to hear. 1 dead (the suspect) and at least 8 hospitalized.

He's being described by some outlets as a "Somali refugee;" that kind of potent political weapon for Trump and his ilk is the last thing we need right now...

The first woman EVER was running, and Trump got 42% of the female vote; abortion issue to blame?

I'm not saying that the Democratic Party needs to change its stance on abortion, but I think we do need to recognize that it's as divisive an issue as ever and that we're losing millions of votes over it, and think about new communication strategies.

Over the last few years I've noticed a trend where so many progressives, especially here on DU, have seemed to bubble themselves off from reality and assume that the only opposition to abortion is coming from old, white men and that ALL women are pro-choice because, well, why wouldn't they be? They're women, it's their bodies, etc.

The reality is that there are still TENS OF MILLIONS of women in this country that, whether for religious, moral or whatever reasons (I tend to think mostly religious), are against abortion. They consider it the murder of a child, and it's especially potent for them if they are mothers themselves (or at least women who have tried to have a child). And even though abortion rights are the law and it's a settled matter, and there are tons of other issues on the ballot, including the incredible misogyny of Donald Trump and the opportunity to vote for the first female candidate, a candidate being for or against that "murder of a child" is a dealbreaker for them.

I suspect there are hundreds of thousands of female voters, maybe MILLIONS, who disagreed with Trump on nearly every single issue, were incredibly offended by his rhetoric, and agreed with Clinton on nearly every single issue. But the fact that he could claim he was against abortion, while she proudly supported it, was the dealbreaker (especially late-term abortions).

The question is, is there anything at all that we can do to stop people from making their voting decision on this single (already settled) issue? Think about it. Wouldn't your vote be affected if, in your mind, you were choosing between someone who is pro-murder and someone who is anti-murder? What can we do differently on this issue? What framing needs to occur?

Do only genetic charactertistics count as "history" in elections?

I love seeing us break through racial and gender barriers, but is not the way someone was raised and their experiences in life way more impactful on the way they would conduct themselves as a politician than their gender or race?

Isn't a millionaire a millionaire, whether or not their skin is darker or they have a vagina? Do Herman Cain and Sarah Palin deserve to be elected just because their race/gender are "historical?"

I'd love to see US voters start to scrutinize the backgrounds of candidates to find their "history," not just what's between their legs or what their skin hue is.

Where are the homeless? The poor? The single mothers? The HIV-positive individuals? The abuse survivors? Where are any of these folks in our "historical" elections?

With her qualifications, I suspect Hillary could have won with a 100% positive campaign.

Was watching the Cubs game last night and I didn't see nearly as many HRC ads about Hillary as I did HRC ads about Trump.

But with as qualified as she is and as qualified as he isn't, it would have been a fascinating experiment if she had stepped up and tried the 100% positive campaign that focused only on why she was qualified, not why he isn't. Not only to see her win with that approach, but to also see if it has a positive post-election effect in terms of bringing people together.

Do you think we'll ever see that type of campaign in our lifetimes? If the most qualified candidate in history didn't take that approach, I'm skeptical unfortunately
Go to Page: 1