Most News organizations have as their main goals making money. Fox News has the added

goal to push lies and **** that helps republicans get and maintain political power. I would hazard to guess the reason they are vulnerable to boycotts is because they have the latter as their main goal. So they are reckcless financially (goodwill is a commodity on all companies' balance sheets) with who they hire and what they say. If your goal is to bullshit, and keep in mind canadian fox news while it lasted and right wing newspapers in canada don't make a profit typically, then maybe you don't care so much about the goodwill with the public. And maybe that is why Fox News gets boycotted more than other TV News. If gun control is an important wedge in getting lower and middle income americans to vote republican, then maybe it was worth it for Laura Ingram to attack a child's acceptance status to university. Hope they learned from it. Tides have changed. But I bet the GOP/NRA goes down fighting harder on the gun issue which is reckless at this point. And they will then face more boycotts. GOP can't win elections if the NRA is tamed.

Three things. Maybe countering should include anthropological information on how

relatively banal the genocide feels and can be explained as a human instinct to the people engaged in the ethnic cleansing or the persecutory rumours. Because it is. Like hot tempered murder it is instinctive. It is wrong and it is prosecuted and policed. But it builds and builds and may not feel like a big change is happening to a group of people about to create war crimes or persecute or ethnic cleanse. They may not be aware of the changes inside themselves over time leading up to it. Remember the 60 Minutes story of the people all over eastern Europe from small villages whose parents did nothing to stop locals jews from being shot and buried during WWII. Then the parents said nothing after the war. They had done things that made them feel complicit. Their children are only now pointing out the killing fields to authorities. There parents are gone or safe from prosecution by time. The point of the 60 Minutes story was that just about anyone could be complicit in genocide if the conditions are ripe.

Second, if it is under the leadership of a psychopath, then share information on how compelling a psychopath is with his (or her) scenarios. With examples. Only human rights workers or people in the helping professions regularly hear or see something and have a very compelling feeling to do something to a great degree. Here is a clue for the rest.... if something feels more compelling than normal, if the magnitude of the compelling feeling is great and novel, and it involves attacking some 'other', you have a psychopath in your life.

Third, what has happened to the people who have committed genocides over the generations after the genocide? I mean people who participate as part of the public. Not the leaders who get tried in tribunals. Turks are still trying to suppress the information on armenian genocide 100 years later. The Japanese too. The germans and their children were split as a country and were reviled. How does having been part of a genocide affect the relations between parents and their children and for how many generations? What will being part of a genocide or ethnic cleansing mean to a person and their psychology? To their future. Because by the time ethnic cleansing starts the other has already been dehumanized to the genocidal group to a point where there is no way for empathy for mankind to get through to them.

I'm sure Facebook is studying the issue but maybe they should have a partnership with human rights organizations in the event ethnic cleansing or genocide are in the build up phase.

If you could harness the power of amnesty international voices through Facebook to the facebook public during dangerous times somewhere war crimes are building it would be amazing. Nobody should be victims of ethnic cleansing or the victim of a psychopath. I learnt the latter the hard way 23 years ago. Was in the midst of being attacked without knowing it for years. In the end, the participants seem to be immune to the cries of those they target by the time a war crime occurs, so the logic in the three points above should be used too. Emotions are how war crimes roll out. Maybe appealing to the logic of the perpetrators should be some of the brakes.

I thought the same thing. And why would Putin, who is unhappy Russia broke up,

want North Korea to join with South Korea and become a Democracy? I mean if there was a war or if sanctions toppled him. It would then be a western democracy. Only way to keep Un in power is to negotiate a peace for now. Prop the Kims up without them giving up their current nukes. Apparently the Kim family slush fund is out of money and the sanctions are working. Yup Putin would advise Kim Jon Un to make a deal right now and to flatter Trump to the nth degree before things get worse for them. But did Putin do it? Plus a peace deal, even if NK keeps its present nukes, would help Trump and republicans in the 2018 election. That is corruption the Trump and GOP are benefiting from without being directly involved. Why wouldn't the republicans love Putin if he does all manner of things to help them win in a way that is unspoken and thus unprovable as collusion goes. GOP gets corruption that benefits them. Putin gets a friend in Trump and maybe less sanctions. Nobody goes to jail. Republicans win elections. Authoritarians rule the planet.

Gavin Newsom tweet:

I posted it because the US MSM had not picked up the story. Not because

I care. I'm done with trying to give Trump credit for things like his democratic gun control stance on wednesday when he is just going to flip back. I hear the meme that it is Trump's Republican Party. No. It is all republican all the time party. The republicans want to be known as Trump's underlings so if he gets impeached by democrats they can say to Democratic and Independant voters 'we were just following Trump'. To Trump's base who would be angry they'll say 'we were supporting Trump'. IMHO. Just a guess. With little exception, Trump policies are full on republican. The Republicans, the NRA, ALEC, FOX News and the usual GOP suspects are the ones in control.

Rubio escaping to the big picture rather than the specific. No quotes

will be available on the gun issue when Rubio runs for the nomination in 2020. He's all about not being quoted on anything tonight.

He is now for banning large capacity magazines. Wow.

Great kids. Great questions.

Because Trump's support is only 40% he is not doing a good job of gaslighting

Americans like other GOP Presidents have done. So the truth is running free from GOP control. Look at guns. Look at healthcare. And the GOP leadership in the Congress does not have gravitas anymore to make up for it. Trump has just given up GOP tactics to be perused and analysed by the public at a speed where the workings behind the GOP lies are discernable.

GOP is wedded to the gun issue because they can't make the base worry government

is going to take their money away as they don't have much money in the base. Tax cuts are really only for the rich. But the base do have guns. And GOP can threaten that Democrats will take their guns away in elections. They almost need these school shootings to renew the connection with their working class base. Plus they need gun clubs at schools to create a new generation of gun enthusiasts. Not working this time. Taking away AR-15s is so reasonable right now. So is not allowing someone who is considered too immature to drink, too immature to get a major weapon. If Democrats manage to get common sense gun control it would wipe out that important relationship between the GOP rich and the GOP base because, let's face it, they don't get the same things out of the GOP economy. I mean what are the GOP going to threaten Democrats will take away if the gun issue evolves into a reasonable discussion?

Paul Begala tweet:

Right wingers get to have Russia corrupt the us system on their behalf. What is not for the GOP

to Love? Corruption to keep power for themselves without the risk of being indicted for it.