ProMinnesota House speaker, her husband shot and killed in 'assassination'
n3m37h100% a Drumpf supporter
Wangari MaathaiMaybe. Maybe not. They are saying suspect was appointed by Tim Walz. They also found anti-trump signs in car. Could be just to throw people off the scent, or maybe just a personal thing thing against people. We don’t know. Regardless of what size shooter is on, it’s not good for any political parties, but it’s just gonna cause more dissent and division.
I remember when Trump got shot at people here we celebrating and saying things like “Oh wish he had better aim.” Now it’s happened to Democrats and people here are saying how terrible it is.
Shooting political people is never a good thing, regardless of what party they are in. Lemmy needs to stop celebrating shootings when it happens to people they don’t like. Because stuff is also happening to people they do like. Violence is never the answer and always just ends up badly.
Sometimes violence is the answer, actually. What would you do to hitler before the genocide if you knew what would happen?
Sometimes violence is the answer, actually.
Looks like the shooter of these democrats agreed with you that violence is the answer. You approve? He was just as strong in his beliefs as you. Think that’s a good thing?
I’m a lifelong pacifist and activist. You can come up with all the scenarios you want, but I will never advocate violence.
The comment in question pulled a “both sides” on an issue that is beyond overwhelmingly coming from the right side of the spectrum.
Two Democratic state Senators were just brutally attacked, and at least one killed. That’s not the time for Democrats to introspect, it’s a time to be outraged.
Drawing some kind of similarity between internet commenters wishing a conservative assassin had succeeded in killing Trump, and a (almost certainly) right wing chud actually assassinating two Democratic Senators is bullshit. Political violence in this country comes almost entirely one direction. Pretending otherwise just blunts that reality and makes future attacks all the more likely.
Two Democratic state Senators were just brutally attacked, and at least one killed. That’s not the time for Democrats to introspect, it’s a time to be outraged.
Which is exactly what happened when Trump got shot at. My point being that the whole narrative of “violence is right to fight back” is the exact same mindset this shooter had. In his mind, he thought violence is right to fight back.
I’m saying it’s wrong. But hey, you keep advocating for violence. Let me know how what works for you. I’m not going to join in your bloodlust and I don’t care what side you are on. Be sure let us know how your FBI interview goes after they read this thread.
I agree with outrage. I don’t agree with violence as a reaction though.
Who called for violence as a reaction? Anyways, it doesn’t seem like this guy is likely to come quietly when the cops find him, so I do have to wonder what you think the cops should do if he is armed and refuses to negotiate or surrender? Some level of violence may just end up being the correct reaction. We shall see.
Be sure let us know how your FBI interview goes after they read this thread.
Uh, OK. I’ll stay by the phone.
Who called for violence as a reaction?
Read the thread.
So, nobody.
Ahhh, I guess i just read every single comment here wrong.
So you’re saying that you and everyone in this thread agree that violence is not the answer then?
What does “violence is not the answer” exactly mean? I see several people pointing out that it sometimes is the answer. I don’t see anyone calling for violence as a reaction to this incident, which is what you claimed.
What does “violence is not the answer” exactly mean?
That means that I hope no one retaliates with violence, for the awful thing that happened with the democrats shooting? And that I don’t think violence against an politician for anything is called for. What else do you think I would mean?
I don’t see anyone calling for violence as a reaction to this incident, which is what you claimed.
Ok, then I am glad this thread agrees that no one. So people here agree that this no politician should have violence inflicted upon them? Correct? Good, I think that’s a sensible way to approach it. And I’m glad cooler heads are prevailing.
I’m unsure why some people seem to be annoyed that I an calling for non-violence. Especially since everyone agrees. I’m glad no one is calling for violence against politicians.
So people here agree that this no politician should have violence inflicted upon them?
There you go, completely off the rails again. I never said that, and I’m pretty certain that a lot of this thread disagrees with that statement. There are absolutely cases where politicians should have violence inflicted on them. That doesn’t mean anyone is calling for it in this case.
If Trump refuses to leave office in 2028, I would be totally behind an assassination attempt. If the state doesn’t use its monopoly on the use of violence to maintain democracy, it loses the right to that monopoly.
Wait, so I am confused. I said that some people seemed to be for violence, and you said I was wrong. Now youa resaying that a lot in this thread disagree with my statement that violence isn’t the answer.
There are absolutely cases where politicians should have violence inflicted on them.
And I disagree. Which I have from the beginning. Please disengage from this conversation. You and I are not going to agree on the violence thing. Good day to you.
What is this, an Abbott and Costello bit? The words in a sentence are important - all of them. There are differences between people being for violence (as if that’s a thing), people recognizing that violence is sometimes necessary, people thinking that violence is appropriate in response to this issue, and people calling for violence. Those all mean different things. Maybe you throw them all in the same mental bucket, but they are not the same. This is a symptom of thinking in thought terminating cliches. That used to be a Republican thing, but its sad how often I’m seeing it now on the left.
And I disagree… You and I are not going to agree on the violence thing.
Which is fine. There is nothing wrong with us disagreeing on that. The problem is when you mix that in with accusations that I (and others) support violence in cases where we don’t, or claim we are calling for violence in response to this incident when we have done no such thing.
Please disengage from this conversation.
Sure, I have no doubt that you can keep it going all by yourself. You really don’t need me for it.
disengage
You don’t get to decide when others disengage, only yourself. If you don’t want more replies, just stop commenting.
You just had a comment in this thread removed for advocating violence. You trying to get your comments removed for slapfighting too or what? Just move on. wth?!
You just had a comment in this thread
Mods will mod. I don’t think that comment should have been removed, but I’m not going to protest it.
You trying to get your comments removed for slapfighting too or what?
I’ll go with “what”. I’m not sure the mods will penalize me for not following your commands.
let it go
It may go whenever it wants.
Well, based on your the history of you getting stuff removed, our conversation here is done. I’m now blocking you, so I won’t see your reply. Good luck! Looks like you are gonna need it in your life.