Although it may be justifiable from a moral perspective, a Trump assassination would likely lead to the Republican problem becoming even worse as we’ve seen a slight bump in the polls after the attempted assassination, and the other Republicans candidates as just as if not even more of a threat than him.
The short version of the argument being made is basically this; if you think killing fascists will solve fascism, you’re going to need a LOT of bullets to get the job done.
Trump is not the problem, he is the symptom. He’s the GOP with the mask off. The toxicity he represents will not go away with his eventual death, whenever and however that comes.
Basically, you can kill people, not ideas
Also fascists like feeling like victims and REALLY like violence in response to perceived oppression. Murdering them will just embolden their behavior and they’re certainly more depraved and craven than we are
See, that part I don’t agree with. Fascists, for the most part, are cowards, and violence can, in the right circumstances, be a very effective tool in a broader strategy of denying them any form of platform or admission to public spaces. It is both effective, and a moral good, to punch fascists.
To be fair, the right wing of American politics is the one with more guns. Killing the man they love most is begging for trouble.
I said this the night it happened- If you kill Chancellor Hitler, you get Chancellor Göring. It’s a systemic issue.
If you kill Hitler in 1930 he gets replaced, if you kill Hitler in 1945 Natzi Germany falls apart. The question is has the Republican Party become a personality cult yet?
Personality cults can find successors to the original cult founder. See: Joseph Smith and Brigham Young.
I always thought it was “Bring 'em young” and referred to pedophiles.
I guess I wasn’t too far off.
“probably”
This is where we are as humanity.
Do you think his assassination would be morally in addition to strategically wrong?
Yes!
Morally, I don’t believe in killing humans at all, especially summarily and without due process.
Self defense being an obvious exception.Which would make a strategic purpose moot. However, strategically it’s dumb: half the voting public would likely revolt, violently, and a sizeable portion of the other half would react negatively at the polls.
I want to agree but I think armed resistance is often necessary as well
