I mean, if she shot up youtube because she got worked up by another alt-right 4chan conspiracy theory, then you'd have a point. But she wasn't, she was upset youtube wasn't paying her enough.

The point is that any violent person unable to be portrayed as "the right" is quickly dropped by the news. The shooting was on the way to being the big news story of the month... and then suddenly dropped out of the news entirely. This creates a bias in the news: all the memorable violent people are on the right because the non-right ones are dropped from news coverage.

Basically, the news wants an attacker who looks like their stereotype of an NRA member and/or Trump supporter. Anybody else is not deemed newsworthy.

Whether or not he hated Trump, he believed that Soros was funding a migrant caravan of invaders, a lie that both Trump and Fox News was pushing constantly, and continued to push even after the shooting. He didn't get those ideas from out of thin air. He got them from the right wing party establishment.

So, I'm curious, who exactly do you think is funding them?

That trip is not free.

Soros certainly has a history of funding exactly that sort of thing. For example, he paid to have boats pick people up right off the coast of Libya and take them to Italy. It would not be the slightest bit surprising for Soros to fund a mob of thousands to invade the USA.

If not Soros, then who? (and who paid that group, and who paid the payers... and does it not lead back to Soros?)

"If not Soros, then who?"

This sounds like if one cannot pinpoint the supposed funder (and prove that they act alone), then you'll feel free to assume it is Soros? This is nonsense.