Hmmm disagree. If someone’s politics are violence, and they have a serious path to enacting them, it’s self defense. Self defense is generally acceptable.
I don’t want to politely walk into a concentration camp because a bunch of people in states I don’t even live in voted to exterminate the queers and their friends.
Also anyone who’s going to say “Gay marriage is violence against society” is an asshole and wrong. Anyone who says abortion is murder but isn’t doing jack fuck to help living humans is not worth listening to. Just to preempt the “well they think the same about you!” nonsense.
Here’s the thing: Trump’s politics do not stop with Trump. Killing him does not kill the fascistic movement he’s contributed greatly to, it has a life of it’s own, and even had he died today, whoever replaces him would still be peddling the same kinds of things, except they’d now have a martyr to rally Trump’s old fanbase around, one that, by virtue of being killed, many people are going to feel reluctant to criticize. As such, I feel that this attack, assuming it was politically motivated (and I figure the odds that someone shoots at Trump for reasons unrelated to his political agenda are quite slim, so it’s probably a safe assumption) was a mistake- I fear that it will have helped Trump’s agenda more than hurt it, and would have done so even if it was successful in killing him.
Now, Im not saying this to be one of those “violence is never the answer” types, I do recognize that there are situations where the only hope one has to survive an openly hostile political force is overwhelming violence; but it must be recognized that such an effort is extremely risky, it has significant drawbacks even if successful (such as setting a precedent legitimizing political violence, which anyone else may use, or causing collateral damage), and carries a significant risk that when the shooting stops, you’ll be on the losing end. As such, it really should be a last resort, and seeing as Trump isn’t even president yet, hasn’t even been voted in, and doesn’t yet have a legislature stacked up to ensure he can actually carry out his agenda, we’re not yet at the point where it is the only option left to stop him. Employing it now makes it more likely that we reach that point.
Trump is enough of a cult of personality that I think if he died (either through violence or natural causes), it would limit the effectiveness of the right wing. You are correct that it wouldn’t stop the problem. Project2025 wasn’t written by just him. There’s whole buildings full of assholes.
You may also be correct that this will motivate his fans, and that’s a net negative.
Also, I think the genie’s out of the bottle on political violence. There was already a coup attempt. If trump loses, I would be extremely surprised if there wasn’t violence. If he wins, people will suffer and die through policy. We’re not in a good spot.
Unfortunately, I cannot thanos snap away the far right.
Trump did kind of show Republicans that if you lean into your bullshit without flinching that no one will stop you. I think it’s hard to pull off for non-narcissists, though.
Remember “grab them by the pussy?” We all thought he was done after that, the media started circling for the inevitable play of contrition, which… never came. He just kept spouting bullshit, and it worked
That and voter suppression and probably foreign interference to destabilise the US
I think it’s hard to pull off for non-narcissists, though.
No, being visibly neurodivergent is terrible for your chances in politics unless you can lean in to the ND image. Look at how many people call Zuckerberg a robot or a lizard because he has visible autism. Elon kinda got away with leaning into the autism ND image for a while, but it didn’t do anything for him after he started openly being a Nazi, because the people who admire an openly autistic person aren’t Nazis. As a right wing political figure, being openly neurodivergent is terrible for your image, and that’s why Trump presents himself as a neurotypical. And while nobody can say for sure without actually evaluating him clinically, I think it’s fair to say his neurotypical straight cis male persona is genuine. Trump is not a member of a socially disabled vulnerable minority.
You’re not thinking evil and intelligent enough.
That cult propaganda is running full force. As a martyr Trump would shut the fuck up, making him much more useful, beginning with Republican reunification and spin at the convention next week.
The masses don’t like anyone near as much as they like Trump. I’m not saying they couldn’t find someone to rally behind, but there’s no one that stands out yet. This would hurt them in the general election, because there would be in-fighting and competing, and some general disarray. It is possible someone could emerge before the next election. Maybe they’d give Pudding Fingers another chance.
If Trump were dead then the big money would choose the next candidate behind closed doors next week at the convention. It would reunite the current polarization of the Republican party. The “masses” that were so easily co-opted will be more easily misled with the symbol than the fallible man.
You’re making the same mistake as the user above. Evil isn’t stupid. You underestimate them even as they’re nearing a milestone victory.
Evil isn’t stupid, but no one else has been successful in wielding Trump’s base like Trump. Yes, they will coalesce around some other turd, but that might not occur before the election. The organizers will be going full tilt, but just because they choose someone doesn’t mean the herd will flock. The organizers tried to prevent Trump from winning the nomination during his first election. Their influence is great, but not as great as his. Who knows. Another attempt is unlikely at this point. So, it’s all speculation.
no one else has been successful in wielding Trump’s base
No one else has done so in a shallow enough manner for you to care to notice. Start with Reagan.
In any case where the evil party is using their loss as a rallying cry, RALLY AND YELL LOUDER. Never give them any benefit of empathy.
Without offering any opinions, thanks for sharing your perspective.
Curious if you agree with / defend yesterday’s assassination attempt specifically?
If not, then ask the same about if it had been a successful assassination with no collateral damage? (e.g. no rally attendees hurt)
The primary problem with this attempt was Trump lived.
Republican policies are unacceptable. If someone rounded up all the republicans and shot them dead, I wouldn’t be terribly upset. They are bad people doing bad things of their own free will. We could do so much more about climate change, for example, if we weren’t being dragged down by conservatives.
I’d rather we have non violent paths forward, but I’ll take what I can get.
You’re probably the type of person who would end up being a shooter if this is your mentality.
This is political violence. Going around trying to assassinate people you don’t like is not self defense. Your presumption of violence is NOT a justification of using violence. Two wrongs don’t make a right, you’re still in the wrong. This mentality that violence is a just mean to achieve political goals is quite literally what terrorism is. This is the exact line of logic that Hamas used to justify the Oct 7th attack against civilians or what the Turks used to justify the Armenian genocide or what Hitler used to justify the Holocaust. You have to be some type of soulless ghoul to think this type of behavior is acceptable in a civil society. The majority of Americans already don’t support what Trump spews from liberals to independents to the apolitical to even some conservatives. If you criticize Trump and MAGA of being pro violence then you have to stick by your principles and be anti violence.
Bernie’s response is without a doubt the correct one. Not only is condemning the violence morally correct, but it shows that he stand by his principles and his condemnation helps remove fuel from the fire by not encouraging more violence. Bernie is right, be like Bernie.
Do people think that forcing children to give birth isn’t violence? That having the bank seize your house isn’t violence?
Imagine the privileged delusion that you’re above all that — that you’ve transcended the zombie horde of apocalyptic subhumanity clutching at your ankles, literally trying to rob your children, to poison them, to end all life on earth. The treacherous religious maniacs, the ignoramuses, the money-hungry, fashion-obsessed, sports-car-maniacal narcissists who would eat a puppy alive for a Rolex. That these orc-like creatures aren’t here to torment and torture and pillage.
But sure. Let’s not stoop to their level by struggling too much as they eat us alive.
Cool. Maybe we’ll end up being bunk mates in the concentration camp.
I don’t know what to tell you. Sometimes politics are violence.
Oh ffs, this is such a terminally online take. You’re not the equivalent of a Jew during the Holocaust nor is Trump Hitler and MAGA Nazis. Don’t get me wrong, Trump is vile person to his core. He has no redeemable qualities and his policies have done a lot of harm. His supporters are also brain dead morons who operate like a cult. I’m with you there, BUT despite that, we have to operate within the context of our reality.
The reality is that Trump and MAGA aren’t the equivalent of the Nazis, not everything you don’t like is Nazi equitable. This is the problem with modern discourse, our education system is rotten that people literally cannot comprehend history outside of WWII. History did not stop and end there, and the vast majority that happens in the world is not comparable to those specific time period. There are a lot of other wannabe dictators in history like Orban or Modi or Erdogan or Yeltsin or Haftar or whatever. Worst case scenario is that Trump does become a dictator, however, 99.99% of dictators of History aren’t like Hitler, he was uniquely evil.
With that being said, Trump isn’t a dictator now, and we have a very real chance of defeating him democratically. We have a very large and powerful coalition against him, we have all the dirt against him, we are using the national due process, and we are using legitimate means to achieve power in this country. All that political violence would do is give Trump and his supporters the rationale to justify that they are right, that Trump is a martyr, and that it is okay for them to use even more violence. We can’t stoop down to their level and become like them. We have to shut down that type of behavior, not normalize it.
Do you know why? It’s because we want to live in a civil society where peaceful democratic power transfers is the one and only legitimate means of gaining power. We can’t go on self righteous moral crusades where we use violence on people we don’t like to achieve political goals. Do you know why? Because that’s terrorism by definition, and to use something you’re familiar with, it’s what the Nazis did. Political violence is wrong on principle. It’s wrong when Trump and his cult do it, it’s wrong when we do it, it’s wrong when anybody does it.
The man himself is the sole person to have attempted to prevent the peaceful transfer of power. Sometimes there are exceptions to the ‘don’t stoop to their level rule’, those times are usually life or death. Another Trump presidency would be catastrophic enough, purely going from his spoken intentions, to justify his murder an infinite number of times over.
You take him down either by defeating him through the election or by taking to trial via the justice system, preferably both. Assassinations are not a fucking legitimate means of achieving political goals in democracy. I feel like I’m taking crazy pills for even having to explain something this simple.
Wonder how countries sort out hard political questions
Well, sometimes when the hard political question is “Should we kill all of these people in our outgroups?” the answer is violence. Not always. Sometimes people just die in mass.
Sometimes people just die in mass.
“En masse” – it’s borrowed from French. “In mass” means you’re either talking about a Catholic church service or Massachusetts.
What does “en masse” translate to when translated to English?
Well, there was the whole second world war
So trump’s fanbase using violence is completely fine then? It isn’t a “presumption of violence.” Maybe you haven’t followed a single piece of history of the past 4 years.
Breaking into Nancy pelosi’s house in an assassination attempt, physically forcing raped girls and women to risk their lives to bear a rapists child, beating up and sometimes killing trans people for using the “wrong” bathroom, hosting and rallying known terrorist groups against their political opponents, kidnapping the governor of Michigan and DNC vice chair??
Storming the fucking capitol of the US with gallows set up trying to kill politicians and the vice president??? What world do you live in where the MAGA cult is not using political violence? Seriously? Which was one of 11 damn republican terror attacks THAT MONTH.. In what world is there a “presumption of violence” when the right wing organizations have literally layed out a public plan for installing a fascist dictatorship and said that there will be blood if the rest of the country doesn’t submit??
It’s wrong when they do it, it’s wrong we do it, it’s wrong when anybody does it. That’s because political violence is wrong on principle. I’m not exactly sure what you’re goal is here, do you think two wrong would make a right? Do you perhaps think an eye for an eye is a good concept to live by? Stop trying to justify violence as a legitimate means of achieving political goals, that’s literally terrorism.
How very 1932 of you.
I guess counterterrorism is just called terrorism now according to you. Looks like america, aost every every European nation, China, and many Asian nations are terrorists states to you.
There’s a distinction between war and terrorism. Terrorism is done by non state actors, wars are done by states. For example, there’s a very big difference between the democratic government of the Philippines voting to fight ISIS in their southern islands, and some random ISIS terrorist trying to kill the Filipino president to intimidate non muslim candidates from running for president.
Do you perhaps think an eye for an eye is a good concept to live by?
no, but nothing is so black and white. do you perhaps think that bullies should always be acquiesced to? that defending yourself from attackers is inherently and unilaterally immoral?
i’m trying to mind my own business and live my own life peacefully. they’re the ones constantly (publicly) cheering for me and my kind to be dragged out of our homes and shot for virtue of being born either non-white or non-straight (depending on flavor of republican, maybe both).
the reason violence is no longer acceptable as a mechanism for political change is that we built a system to address grievances without it: our representative democracy. we rose above the need by using the law to ensure everyone can be heard. Indeed the very system republicans are attempting to dismantle and replace with autocracy; they’ve already thoroughly corrupted the highest courts in our country to do so. they intend to continue to close all reasonable avenues of political resolution specifically for the purpose of being able to call any resistance to their rule “terrorism”, as you just have. this itself is an act of political violence.
if I corner you in an alley with a gun so you have nowhere to run and tell you to give me your wallet, but I haven’t shot at you or even aimed it at you yet, does this make me non-violent? is it acceptable? would you fight back, or capitulate? how about if I then tell you to leave but not your partner? would you fight back then, or just leave them to whatever fate might befall them? be careful with your answer: if you say anything other than “I’d leave them with you and continue about my day like normal”, you will be seen as a dangerous criminal. the police won’t help you, they don’t help your kind, and you probably brought it upon yourself in their eyes.
no, but nothing is so black and white. do you perhaps think that bullies should always be acquiesced to? that defending yourself from attackers is inherently and unilaterally immoral?
You tell a teacher or parent on a bully and they’ll punish them accordingly, or if you’re an adult you report them to your HR department or whereever. You don’t go and fucking shoot dead a bully. That’s not a sane solution to anything.
they’re the ones constantly (publicly) cheering for me and my kind to be dragged out of our homes and shot for virtue of being born either non-white or non-straight (depending on flavor of republican, maybe both).
I understand they’re discriminatory bigots, but Jesus are you overexaggerating. Like who is advocating for this? I want specific names and sources if you don’t mind, bonus points if they’re from prominent politicians.
the reason violence is no longer acceptable as a mechanism for political change is that we built a system to address grievances without it: our representative democracy. we rose above the need by using the law to ensure everyone can be heard
Exactly, that’s the point, we have a functioning system, so why are you trying to justify terrorism?
they’ve already thoroughly corrupted the highest courts in our country to do so. they intend to continue to close all reasonable avenues of political resolution specifically for the purpose of being able to call any resistance to their rule “terrorism”, as you just have. this itself is an act of political violence.
Assassinations aren’t resistance, what in the fuck are you talking about? Do you seriously not see the problem with self righteous assholes going on terrorism crusades killing political candidates they don’t like? That’s how we move from a stable democracy and into a failed state.
if I corner you in an alley with a gun so you have nowhere to run and tell you to give me your wallet, but I haven’t shot at you or even aimed it at you yet, does this make me non-violent? is it acceptable? would you fight back, or capitulate? how about if I then tell you to leave but not your partner?
What? These situations aren’t even remotely comparable. You’re trying so hard to justify terrorism that you’re not even being logically coherent. No, somebody shooting someone who’s directly threatening them in person as an act of self defense is vastly different from some rando shooting political candidates they don’t like.
the police won’t help you, they don’t help your kind, and you probably brought it upon yourself in their eyes.
Idk what alternative reality you live in, but here in the real world, terrorism is condemned and legitimate peaceful avenues are pursued. Trump should be prevented from becoming president again, but this is done by defeating him in the election, not by fucking killing him and turning him into a martyr. Trump should be brought to justice via the criminal justice system, which has already found him guilty of a crime, not by some self righteous rando shooting.
i was considering how to more fully reply to all this but it just seems more and more like you’re either intentionally being disingenuous or are maybe too oblivious to see that being put in the crosshair of 150+ million people’s violent, purity-obsessed, hate-driven political ideology is itself a mortal threat. i’m suspecting the prior given how clearly you muddy the analogy to insinuate that i somehow think it’s reasonable to shoot a schoolyard bully dead for pushing me on the playground, as though any sane human wouldn’t think that an overreaction.
but sure, a public plan to eliminate the political voice of any “woke enemies” (that’s anyone LGBT or non-servile women btw) by replacing public servants with staunch ideologically-aligned republican loyalists and leave us with no options to resist except violence definitely deserves no second thought. definitely should not be considered a threat, sure, ok.
a non-violent system of addressing political differences only works if everyone’s voice can be reasonably heard. the system is barely doing that now, and will shortly be stifling a lot more voices that aren’t ideologically aligned with nationalistic christian conservatism the moment they get the power to do so. if they’re shutting down the system that prevents violence, the result should seem obvious. violence is happening now because people are trying to use the system, and it’s failing, and it’s getting further disassembled and stacked against them right now. that alone is directly threatening - but the fact that they couple this with loud fear-mongering intended to stoke people into a fearful, hateful panic over the particular group of people (who are also simultaneously getting silenced) should worry you even more, because this circumstance is actually threatening.
there was anti-asian violence (and worse) during ww2 when the rhetoric was “dirty japanese people are going to kill you and your family”. there was anti-muslim violence after 9/11 when the rhetoric was “dirty brown people are coming to kill you because they hate america”. there was anti-asian violence (again) during covid when the rhetoric was “dirty asian people are intentionally bringing the wuhan virus over to kill you and your family”.
now the rhetoric is “lgbt people are coming to shoot your schools up and rape your kids” - and wow i sure wonder what will happen next. those gays better not feel threatened or it’ll ruin my peaceful sunday, right? with the planned republican loyalist capture of government and the justice system, i also sure wonder what will happen the first time some poor gay guy is stupid enough to defend himself from an “in person” (seemingly this matters to you) attack by hitting back at the american pure-blood super-straight patriot actively assaulting him. will the (gay-hating christian republican) system work to exonerate him (a disgusting gay man who probably rapes kids according to our news and politicians) before a (gay-hating christian republican) judge and a jury of his (gay-hating christian republican) peers? lol hmmmm no you’re right there’s no threat at all.
King George approves of your comment.
A more accurate comp would be some American trying to assassinate George Washington because he didn’t like him.
I hope Trump dies from infection, sorry Bernie.
Sadly, I doubt it.
This is going to be the first chapter in a book about several assassination attempts during his reign of terror, at least if it turns out the way I expect it to.
They’re going to ramp security way up. I wouldn’t be surprised if the left finally gets their way with gun bans as a result of this. Right before a fascist takeover.
It could happen.
Historically in the US assassination attempts are pretty much the only thing that moves the needle on gun control.
It would stop being “gun control” and start being “disarming the opposition” – i.e., the precursor to a purge.
So don’t give them your guns make them take em by force and defend your property and self.
It could happen, but in this country, I doubt it. If it happens in this country it will be like getting an abortion or voting: put up too many arbitrary, inconvenient hurdles and people just won’t exercise the right to begin with.
We’re been over this: yes, it can happen here.
Oh I believe it.
But when our people couldn’t stay at home in total comfort for three weeks without clamoring for a hair cut, you’ve got to count me a little skeptical that they’ll have the patience for war after they encounter their first empty grocery store, not to mention the thousands of missile-equipped drones that their AR-15’s are insufficient to destroy.
Germans at least had an understanding of war. Americans do not, and that is why it’s unlikely to happen here, at least that’s my thoughts on the matter.
I bet he will be boxed bulletproof glass, just like he was in his January 6th speech from here on out.
He’s not going to be in a hamster ball. He’ll be out in the open sometimes.
I hope there’s not too many attempts lol
Trump is not going to put himself in a position to be shot again, so if someone wants to try another time, they have to be able to get within a few feet of him or risk the black market to acquire other means of trying to achieve their goal.
I think there’ll be other attempts, but I don’t see it happening. It’s a shame all that McDonald’s hasn’t worked to seal up his arteries.
Him dying from a shot to the ear or heart palpitations after the adrenaline would be peak humor, and a better outcome than if he was shot in the head.
My first thought was that all his makeup and spray tans can’t be good at keeping infections away
I remember when a politician’s family was nearly killed and this happened.
I like presidents who don’t get shot.
My mother used to say “If others jump of a bridge, do you do the same?”
I’ve never liked this saying.
I usually hear it as “if your friends […], would you do so too?” If my friends—who I feel are quite level-headed—were jumping off of a bridge, I think they would probably have a pretty good reason. Is there a bear charging us from behind and they’ve noticed but I haven’t? Is it because the bridge is short and they’re safely jumping into some water for fun? (I’ve done this before. If the conditions are right, it’s perfectly safe for those who can swim.)
Surround yourself with good, level-headed people. If your friends are arrogant/ignorant or not all that bright, you can’t assume they’re right to jump. If you’ve built up a sensible group of peers and they all are or are not doing something, you should at least consider why you are the outlier.
Then again, I just wanted to dispute this saying. I’m not saying I agree with OP here.
So you would jump off the bridge based on the fact that he jumped? I don’t believe you.
Who’s “he”?
If only one jumps, I’m gonna think “why are they jumping?”
If everyone is jumping and I know I’m surrounded by reasonable people, I wouldn’t jump blindly but I’m gonna think “why am I not jumping?”
And that’s why society is how it is. Nobody is making their own decisions but following their so called heroes.
You’re dead now and don’t even know why, because you followed like a Lemming without even caring about what’s up.
I wouldn’t jump blindly but I’m gonna think
Nobody is making their own decisions
So you wouldn’t just jump because they did. I don’t understand your whole argument then.
Edit: Wait, you’re not OP that made the argument. Why would you answer a question directed at them?
I see where you’re coming from.
Sayings have to be short and memorable, meaning they usually lack nuance, are wrong depending on context, or are just straight up wrong. That’s why I don’t like the bridge jumping one; it’s the same reason I don’t like most sayings. I don’t think the bridge jumping saying is “straight up wrong.” Simplistic and lacking nuance? Yes.
I think you’re right in that few make their own decisions and defer to their “heroes.” I’d instead say few truly think critically, despite believing they do.
There are always people who do things nobody else does, don’t do things everyone else does, do things with an uncommon approach, or hold opinions that are considered outside the sphere of common thought. As a whole, this is okay. Not just okay, but good. Good for making societies interesting.
When everyone does x, that doesn’t mean you should be doing x. Divergence sometimes proves righteous. This is what I presume is intended by the bridge jumping saying.
However, I feel that many are far too arrogant in their divergencies. If something is different from everything else, that does not make it inately better. Often, it is not.
This is especially true in the West. Western (especially American) culture is so individualistic that arrogance is rampant. How often do people really stop think whether they are really right about an ingrained divergency, to think that maybe they are in the wrong…maybe they’re not a rare enlightened one. For example, maybe prevaling theory from experts might have just a modicum of validity. Maybe more than some nunce’s gut feeling.
Anyway, I’m rambling so to get to the point:
If everyone else is jumping off a bridge, don’t jump blindly, but question why you aren’t jumping. You might be right not to jump. However, as the only one not jumping, you should consider if jumping might be just fine. Maybe everyone else has a good reason to be jumping.
The point is to highlight that one of the two politicians being compared is an utterly despicable asshole.
My bad, I thought it was an attempt at justification instead of whataboutism.
Your confidence in your understanding of what that word means is misplaced.
Making jokes is different than approval.
Okay, what were the jokes.
I bet they were really funny if he just had to let them out then. Share with the class.
I am sure there were lot of funny jokes about the situation, I dont remember them off the top of my head. It is inherently very funny situation outside of the part where he got hit with a hammer.
It’s also funny how Trump almost got shot. Except, you know, the getting killed part.
This is what you sound like. Like a complete moron.
What? That’d have been hilarious. Instead all we got is some lame false flag
Unironically fuck off with this attitude.
Go talk about the builderbergs and their cancer satellites in the hole you came from.
Lol, enjoy that high road in the dictatorship that genocides every trans person in America
Uh… There are already plenty of funny jokes about trump getting shot at… You guys have gotten super lame and stodgy. You have become the party of being stuck up.
Someone breaking into your house is inherently funny?
Two dudes in the middle of the night half clothed and both holding a hammer is inherently funny. Situations that are out of the ordinary are typically funny.
Why… okay, completely setting aside whatever concern I might have for the victim, literally what do you find funny about that? Is it the hammer? Like, it should have been a knife? Wtf are you talking about?
Situations that are out of the ordinary are typically funny.
I know you’re pretty delusional to the extent of vaccine and mask denial in 2024, but maybe take a hint that you keep needing to play make believe in order to defend your far right pals?
Let’s not forget, trying to remove access to health care is an act of violence that will cause people to die. Restricting access to women’s health alth care is an act of violence that will cause people to die. Outlawing gender affirming care is an act of violence that will cause people to die. Appointing judges to support these policies - and those judges writing opinions enabling those policies as well as opinions restricting environmental regulations - are acts of violence that will cause people to die. Locking migrants in cages is an act of violence that leads to people dying. So why are those acts of violence acceptable but this one is not?
You might say that none of them are acceptable. But let me put it another way. Law enforcement shot and killed the perpetrator of this act of violence and we as a society deem it reasonable and justified. But why shouldn’t we do the same thing for this guy?
And the answer is: we should.
He killed over a million people during covid.
Liberals would rather literally die than admit they are complicit with fascism. As long as there’s some “other” being killed, they won’t give a shit. Whether it’s blacks, immigrants, minorities, LGBT.
They don’t give a shit about you as long as they get their daily Frappuccino.
I hope this is a wake up call for many.
History doesn’t repeat, but it does rhyme.
Not for any of the weirdo liberals who think that “the high road” is where we should be with fascists who are drooling non-stop with the idea of a second Civil War.
Liberals would rather literally die than admit they are complicit with fascism. As long as there’s some “other” being killed, they won’t give a shit. Whether it’s blacks, immigrants, minorities, LGBT.
Okay bro you obviously live in a made up fantasy world.
Make him denounce Hamas
hope this is a wake up call for many.
Nope!
Really wonder what Trump would’ve said if Bernie got shot. Probably offer a pardon to whoever was involved. Maybe even a Medal of Freedom.
Beside it not being the proper democratic way of deciding how to be governed, the problem with political violence is that it quickly spirals out of control and can burn everything to the ground.
Oh, I know that. And I’m willing to bet Trump does too. That’s why I said what I said.
I met a man in the jungle who was […] like a tangerine. […] Some people just want to watch the world burn
-Michael Caine as Alfred Pennyworth in the Dark Knight
Michael Caine was pro-Brexit though.
Stop relating everything to silly movies. Americans…
Life imitates art, or something.
Isn’t that what Donald’s puppeteer wants?
Americans always claim they have the 2A to prevent fascism but when someone actually tries to protect the democracy he is judged by everyone.
Well actually in this case, the shooter was just hunting pedophiles.
Given that he probably knew everything about him was about to become very closely scrutinized, I find it hard to believe a bio description like that is not the motivation here.
So that then makes me wonder if it will prevent Trump from becoming a living martyr. If it becomes publicly and widely known that this attempt was because of Trump’s relationship with Epstein, Trump’s supporters may not be as driven as they otherwise would be.
i had this thought too. i’m always looking for a silver lining in times like this. hope is precious.
I attempted to find the source of this image and its spread seems to originate from 4chan (or at least, 4chan was one of the earliest vectors).
Chances of this being a disinformation / prank seem pretty high currently.
oh not everyone.
fist bump
Can confirm, not everyone indeed
Some people understand
His political adversary doesn’t think it’s unacceptable. He led several thousand people to Congress to lynch the vice president after he lost the election.
And here we have the Paradox Of Tolerance.
The world would be better off without people like Trump in it. I get that we don’t want to be like them in espousing violence against people we don’t like, but at the same time when you have a person who objectively will make the world a more dangerous and unstable place, along with effecting actual harm against the citizens of his own country, you can only be so tolerant.
Tolerance isn’t a paradox; it’s a social contract. Trump broke that contract on Jan 6 and is no longer protected by it.
This is what I was referring to, though I don’t disagree with you.
The problem with most paradoxes is that they’re strawmen.
Let’s look at the Wiktionary definition of Tolerance:
- (uncountable, obsolete) The ability to endure pain or hardship; endurance. [15th–19th c.]
- (uncountable) The ability or practice of tolerating; an acceptance of or patience with the beliefs, opinions or practices of others; a lack of bigotry. [from 18th c.]
- (uncountable) The ability of the body (or other organism) to resist the action of a poison, to cope with a dangerous drug or to survive infection by an organism. [from 19th c.]
- (countable) The variation or deviation from a standard, especially the maximum permitted variation in an engineering measurement. [from 20th c.] And as sugar on top, the etymology: From Middle French tolerance, from Latin tolerantia (“endurance”), from tolerans, present participle of Latin tolerō (“endure”).
So tolearnce isn’t some omniforgiving quality, it’s the quality of “I don’t agree with you, but am prepared to endure up to a reasonable point”. This simple check at what the word means renders the paradox moot as the formulation of the paradox implies tolerance to be an infinite amount of forgiveness when it’s in fact a very limited amount of enduring things. And this limitedness is present in all uses of the word, be it in politics, engineering or medicine.
Somebody who only speaks violence will not respond to peaceful methods. I’m not excited by the prospect of violence but we also can’t just let ourselves be trampled because of some misguided notion that “Well, they decided on violence, there’s nothing we can do because violence back would make us worse 🤷♂️”
I loved it when America did political violence on German soldiers. Today’s shooter is a patriotic hero engaging in America’s most noble pastime, shooting Nazis.
This guy apparently was a registered Republican tho
Republicans are allowed to shoot Nazis too
I mean, they were largely against it the first time too. They were the opposition pushing isolationism or the oligarchs launching the Business Plot.
If only they’d oppose it now
i’ll bet the guy was libertarian bent. libertarians and christian evangelicals don’t necessarily align politically. even though there is some overlap, there are still plenty of reasons for them to be diametrically opposed.
That is not the way we do things here in the US.
That’s why there’s such a huge nazi problem
There really isn’t. People like to invent nazis to shoot at, but in reality, the number of actual nazis is incredibly low. I don’t even think Trump qualifies, he’s just a narcissist who doesn’t look gift horses in the mouth, provided it puts him on the podium. He’s still dangerous, but not in a Hitler way.
stfu
If trump encouraged Jan 6th to happen, when you say things like this does it encourage violence?
Are you implying that MindTraveler has a crowd of rowdy far-right insurrectionists lurking outside the capital building?
No, I am saying that you guys constantly talk about how trump is going to end america and if Jan 6th was encouraged by trumps rhetoris how is this different?
MindTraveller doesn’t have a crowd of rowdy far-right insurrectionists lurking around the capital building. That’s how.
I mean, did you read what I said or what?
Removed by mod
I’m not a he, I’m nonbinary. They/them please.
Removed by mod
“racism”? Oh, a confederate boy, are you?
I guess this is worth asking. Do you strongly disagree with the Civil War? There were plenty of calls to violent action then. But maybe you would have told the slaves to “wait longer.”
You know, keep the peace. Wouldn’t want to be like Trump almost 200 years later.
I dont know what disagreeing with the Civil War means. Is there a case that the civil war was counter productive and shouldnt have happened? Yes. The problem is that you guys are binary thinkers and you are about to freak the fuck out because you wont be able to understand a non basic argument.
Did someone really expect him to be okay with political violence and assassinations?
I expect him to lead da revolushion
Now let’s see who Trump blames for it
The violent, radical left, of course.
Biden should just claim responsibility… he is immune according to trumps supreme court
He won’t actually do anything, so why would he claim responsibility for something he didn’t do? What he should do is have trump arrested for treason, which he has certainly committed hundreds of times.
Well the guys instagram says he is anti-facist… literally. So I would expect you are correct.
He was a registered Republican.
Technically it is Trump who has proved that Biden could legally have this done.
Ingonna be honest. Trump is a danger to democracy and to the world as a whole. Eliminating him would be a contribution to democracy. However, if you decide to go for him, make sure hes really dead. If he just gets hurt that’s a Hufe win for him, because he then can use this attack to deploy a massive anti democratic campaign giving him more Attention.
However, violence should be the lädt option. There are other ways to defeat fascism. Make it possible that the average person can have a good life and don’t copy fascists points. In the case of Trump the USA also missed its chance to ban him from the elections.
The problem with taking down Fascism with violence is that you’re just killing the figureheads, not the fascist ideas. Say that the assassination attempt was successful - he’d become a martyr who would strengthen those beliefs in people (they want to take us down because we’re right type of deal), and his legacy would be easily continued by thousands of influential conservative politicians/foundation members.
Also, political assassination doesn’t exactly scream “upholding democracy”. If you believe in democracy, you shouldn’t want to see a political opponent lose an election for any reason other than the election itself.
This ignores the unfair elements of American democracy including gerrymandering and the electoral college. It also highlights a flaw in democracy, because a fair and equal society wouldn’t permit fascists to be elected.
Democracy shouldn’t be limited to the dictatorship of the majority, there need to be other ways to ensure fairness
there need to be other ways to ensure fairness
Like murdering your enemies? Because that sounds more like barbaric “might makes right” despotism than democracy to me. The moment that both sides accept that these are the rules of the game, all pretense of democracy is dead. At that point “elections” would just be two years of assassination attempts and whichever candidate is still alive in November wins the presidency.
Do you expect to have a productive conversation when you frame things this way?
Anyway I’m sure if you vote hard enough the US Empire won’t collapse as a fascist echo of itself. Make sure you put your back into it.
I’m not saying it’s not an efficient way of dealing with your enemies. But you can’t say “this person is a threat to the democracy we value so highly” and then say “voting won’t help, we need to assassinate candidates we don’t like”. It sounds like you don’t actually value democracy. You just value the candidate you like winning.
From a game theory perspective, democracy isn’t fair. Someone has to lose in order for someone else to win. Particularly in a zero-sum game like the presidential election. You can change the rules of the game, but then you have to be aware that the rules are symmetric. If the new rule is “if the candidate is espousing particularly radical or offensive ideas, it’s okay to kill them”, then the other side gets to play by those rules too. If civil war and barbarism sound like fun to you then by all means go for it. Because once that seal is broken, there’s no going back.
AFAIK the US has never had a presidential candidate get assassinated this close to the election. It would undoubtedly interfere with the fair execution of the democratic process.
Also, if you think Trumpism dies with Trump you haven’t been paying attention. He’s mostly just a useful idiot for the actual forces at work. He’s just as senile as Biden, but he has better PR and more experience bullshitting people in order to hide his idiocy.
Also also, if you think the “American empire” isn’t already a fascist echo of itself, you definitely haven’t been paying attention for like the last two hundred years.
The only alternative to democracy is assassination and barbarism? What about consensus building and federation?
Once again you’re making a straw man.
And yes, sometimes fascists need to be dealt with with violence, whether the figurehead alone or all of them. I’m not advocating for that to happen today but history teaches us this.
you can vote with one hand and hold a rifle with the other. they aren’t exclusive concepts.
spoiler: might makes right, whether you like it or not. you can hold flowers or you can hold an assault rifle. see which one goes further to accomplish your goals. wake up ffs.
A few kind words and a gun will take you a lot farther than just a few kind words.
Unfortunately, if a politician is trying to undermine that democracy, disenfranchise citizens, and break the checks and balances system, then democracy itself might not be enough to save democracy.
Democracy only works if the other side is fighting fair.
Not to mention making a martyr. I mean shit it basically already has.
no, it screams upholding decency
i’ll gladly play whack a mole with fascists until they’re all gone.
Stop making him out to be a martyr before anything happens to him. By repeating the rhetoric that “he’ll be a martyr” you are preemptively saying that we can’t do anything about it. He needs to have consequences for his actions and not just a refusal to hold him accountable because he’ll “be a martyr.”
I didn’t say anything about him not deserving it - in the past, he did call for violence himself and spread hateful beliefs, which I do think makes him deserving of violence as well (since he did break the social contract, intolerance of intolerant type of deal), but my point is that if he were to die due to an assassination, it would make things worse. Even now I’ve seen my relatives who are brainrot-facebook-conversative types being like “he was shot because he spoke the truth”, and it doesn’t seem to be an uncommon sentiment.
Sadly, it’s not an easy problem to solve.
violence should be the lädt option
Typo, or subliminal autocorrect?
Autocrrection. It should mean last
I think that If they managed to kill trump You’ll just get someone else with the same ideas except they aren’t a bumbling idiot Making them a worse threat
whack a mole/nazi is a fun game
If only Trump had the same view on political violence…
“Political violence is absolutely unacceptable”
Well, unless Urist needs to dispose of a vampire king.
