Biden Out of Race

[Splenda88]

---

Members don't see this ad.

100%. I also acknowledge rhetoric like that coming from either side regarding either candidate is intentionally trying to stir fervor.

Republican rhetoric are coming from their leaders. It's not some random person online.

Trump and Vance are crazy.

I told you guys why I was not going to vote for them. They are not serious.

 

[deleted1130227]

Side note - JFK Jr is back in the news ... something about decapitating a whale.




WTactualF

They are eating the dogs:

Also this:

Robert F. Kennedy Jr. Admits He Left a Dead Bear in Central Park

Mr. Kennedy, an independent presidential candidate, confessed to dropping off the bear cub 10 years ago and making it appear that a bike had hit the animal.

www.nytimes.com

 

[cchoukal]

Side note - JFK Jr is back in the news ... something about decapitating a whale.




WTactualF

What can he say, he has a type.

 

[We'llBeDoneIn15Minutes]

JD Vance is the one who called Trump the next Hitler, not Harris.

Trump's the one who likes to tell his paramilitary supporters to "stand by".

You're confused.


And increasingly hysterical.

Toxic level of TDS.
Hopefully you connect the dots better in the OR 😉

 

[DocMcCoy]

I dunno. I'm very skeptical of stochastic terrorism as a concept outside of some very specific examples (Radio Rwanda comes to mind).

There are explicit calls for violence/incitement, but I think those are very rare.

You must think it exists to some degree even in the US as a STRONG proponent of government censorship of online media platforms, no? Is that sentiment only limited to misinformation?

 

[rowsdower88]

You must think it exists to some degree even in the US as a STRONG proponent of government censorship of online media platforms, no? Is that sentiment only limited to misinformation?

I'm not a proponent of censorship.

It's not censorship to ask a social media company to take down a post/user (the vast majority of cases - both twitter and facebook). Just as it's not censorship for a cop to ask me to put down a sign in a public square. They can ask, they can't compel. (Well... they can compel, but that compulsion can then subsequently be questioned in court. Cops often suck.) Facebook and Twitter should NOT have more free speech rights than I do. I hold the government to the same standard in both cases.

Incitement to violence is against the law, I'm ok with that. I think most people are OK with censoring (subsequently punishing?) incitement to violence.

 

[We'llBeDoneIn15Minutes]

Your rationalization is nothing but low-key justification of the assassination attempts on Trump.

It's ok. Whatever lunatic behavior is going on from the left is justified to save America. All of pgg's bizarre rants ooze deep down red white and blue patriotism..... 🙄🥱

 

[DocMcCoy]

Incitement to violence is against the law, I'm ok with that. I think most people are OK with censoring (subsequently punishing?) incitement to violence.

Just trying to pin down where you stand. A variety of recent acts have been described as stochastic terrorism including the congressional baseball shooting, Whitmer kidnapping plot, Buffalo shooting, Pelosi attack, Gabby Giffords shooting, 2018 mail bombings, Jan6, etc. So, it would seem not so rare to make at least make the claim that this type of rhetoric is dangerous. Are you skeptical of these examples as well? What makes the recent Trump assassination attempts different, why can't we apply the "stochastic terrorism" label in these cases? Is it unreasonable to "ask" to tone down the rhetoric in all the above examples?

 

[Splenda88]

Just trying to pin down where you stand. A variety of recent acts have been described as stochastic terrorism including the congressional baseball shooting, Whitmer kidnapping plot, Buffalo shooting, Pelosi attack, Gabby Giffords shooting, 2018 mail bombings, Jan6, etc. So, it would seem not so rare to make at least make the claim that this type of rhetoric is dangerous. Are you skeptical of these examples as well? What makes the recent Trump assassination attempts different, why can't we apply the "stochastic terrorism" label in these cases? Is it unreasonable to "ask" to tone down the rhetoric in all the above examples?

Yeah agree, but the issue is you won't hear Chuck Schumer, Pelosi, Obama engaged in these divisive BS.

It's time you guys stop trying to make excuse for these guys by saying both do it. Republicans won't stop if you guys keep rewarding them.

Imagine a vice president candidate going on Sunday shows saying he said these things so the media can pay attention to these issues while a group of LEGAL immigrants have targets on their back. THIS IS INSANE.

The country will live whether Trump or Harris become president but republicans need to stop supporting these guys.

 

[rowsdower88]

Just trying to pin down where you stand. A variety of recent acts have been described as stochastic terrorism including the congressional baseball shooting, Whitmer kidnapping plot, Buffalo shooting, Pelosi attack, Gabby Giffords shooting, 2018 mail bombings, Jan6, etc. So, it would seem not so rare to make at least make the claim that this type of rhetoric is dangerous. Are you skeptical of these examples as well? What makes the recent Trump assassination attempts different, why can't we apply the "stochastic terrorism" label in these cases? Is it unreasonable to "ask" to tone down the rhetoric in all the above examples?

Maybe I should set the bounds for what I'm talking about. I'm coming at this from a legal perspective. If we want to come at it from an ethical or psychological or other academic perspective we can.

I don't think there is a legal distinction in America to be made between stochastic terrorism and "strong rhetoric". So all of the examples you listed, might be examples of stochastic terrorism in some sense, but legally it's all just strong rhetoric to me - and as such acceptable wrt the law.

As an aside, I think there is an argument to be made that Trump actually did perform incitement to violence on Jan 6, but I can understand the reluctance to try and prosecute that given how close his speech is to definitively protected political speech.

 

[DocMcCoy]

Yeah agree, but the issue is you won't hear Chuck Schumer, Pelosi, Obama engaged in these divisive BS.

It's time you guys stop trying to make excuse for these guys by saying both do it. Republicans won't stop if you guys keep rewarding them.

Imagine a vice president candidate going on Sunday shows saying he said these things so the media can pay attention to these issues while a group of LEGAL immigrants have targets on their back. THIS IS INSANE.

The country will live whether Trump or Harris become president but republicans need to stop supporting these guys.

You are on a soapbox against an argument I would never make. I'm not justifying the rhetoric on either side, simply stating it is wrong (in both cases).

You are also proving my point about the lack of self-reflection of the left. For years, we listened to the highest powers of the democratic party engage in divisive rhetoric, referring to the right as racist, ignorant, deplorable, etc. That has absolutely impacted the way they engage with their political opponents.

We need to stop supporting all of this. We need leadership that can make a case for their ability to govern that doesn't solely rely on painting the other guy in increasingly more negative light.

 

[rowsdower88]

You are on a soapbox against an argument I would never make. I'm not justifying the rhetoric on either side, simply stating it is wrong (in both cases).

Ok, so you're making an ethical argument, not a legal one.

You are also proving my point about the lack of self-reflection of the left. For years, we listened to the highest powers of the democratic party engage in divisive rhetoric, referring to the right as racist, ignorant, deplorable, etc. That has absolutely impacted the way they engage with their political opponents.

Need to go example by example. As an example, Steve King was in the House just 3 years ago. Some accusations of racism I absolutely agree with, some I don't. Some people's definitions of racism don't match others.

We need to stop supporting all of this. We need leadership that can make a case for their ability to govern that doesn't solely rely on painting the other guy in increasingly more negative light.

Absolutely not. Some people should be called out on racist, xenophobic, sexist statements/beliefs etc... To be so afraid of stochastic terrorism that you miss out on calling a spade a spade can be worse IMO.

(Where my libertarian bros at who say the only solution to bad speech is more speech? Lol)

 

[DocMcCoy]

Maybe I should set the bounds for what I'm talking about. I'm coming at this from a legal perspective. If we want to come at it from an ethical or psychological or other academic perspective we can.

I don't think there is a legal distinction in America to be made between stochastic terrorism and "strong rhetoric". So all of the examples you listed, might be examples of stochastic terrorism in some sense, but legally it's all just strong rhetoric to me - and as such acceptable wrt the law.

As an aside, I think there is an argument to be made that Trump actually did perform incitement to violence on Jan 6, but I can understand the reluctance to try and prosecute that given how close his speech is to definitively protected political speech.

As far as I can tell, there is no illegality in indirectly causing violence, so I don't see the point in arguing from that standpoint.

Ok, so you're making an ethical argument, not a legal one.



Need to go example by example. As an example, Steve King was in the House just 3 years ago. Some accusations of racism I absolutely agree with, some I don't. Some people's definitions of racism don't match others.



Absolutely not. Some people should be called out on racist, xenophobic, sexist statements/beliefs etc... To be so afraid of stochastic terrorism that you miss out on calling a spade a spade can be worse IMO.

(Where my libertarian bros at who say the only solution to bad speech is more speech? Lol)

I would bet the farm if we go example by example, you are going to find the left agree with almost all of the counter examples I listed as more likely examples of stochastic terrorism. The right will be more likely to agree that the Trump assassination attempts are... I think my whole argument is that you have to able to call a spade a spade, in the way you mean it, and in the way I mean you can't just cherry pick some rhetoric and give a pass to other because it aligns with your political standing.

 

[rowsdower88]

I would bet the farm if we go example by example, you are going to find the left agree with almost all of the counter examples I listed as more likely examples of stochastic terrorism.

Maybe. But I consider myself on the Left and I just don't see the value in labeling things stochastic terrorism most of the time on my side or the Right. If we went example by example maybe I would agree that academically the concept can be useful to describe statements and events.

If the goal is to pressure political speakers to use less inflammatory rhetoric that's probably good sometimes. But I think the biggest barrier to me accepting the concept's usefulness more broadly is that Trump is demonstrably a threat to democracy. If saying that is stochastic terrorism to some people, then I guess I'm a stochastic terrorist.

Here are the 1st and 2nd findings of the January 6th committee:

"Beginning election night and continuing through January 6th and thereafter, Donald Trump purposely disseminated false allegations of fraud related to the 2020 Presidential election in order to aid his effort to overturn the election and for purposes of soliciting contributions. These false claims provoked his supporters to violence on January 6th."

"Knowing that he and his supporters had lost dozens of election lawsuits, and despite his own senior advisors refuting his election fraud claims and urging him to concede his election loss, Donald Trump refused to accept the lawful result of the 2020 election. Rather than honor his constitutional obligation to “take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed,” President Trump instead plotted to overturn the election outcome."

Reading this on TV or radio and drawing the inference that he is a continuing threat to democracy would meet some definitions of stochastic terrorism (based on my understanding of the concept) because some people feel very strongly about threats to democracy and might take it into their own hands to correct it. Just reading these passages out loud to a susceptible audience could increase the probability that Trump is attacked. I don't think the definition of stochastic terrorism requires misleading or false statements.

 

[GassmanMD]

To be clear, "causing mayhem" is grossly overdramatizing the situation. I listened to the same Daily episode you did.

But you haven’t listened to the eye witness accounts of citizens.

The conservative arguments against these immigrants have gotten FAR from their standard anti-immigrant messaging. First off, it's important to point out that these are legal immigrants. Haitian immigrants in Springfield legally under Temporary Protected Status. Here’s how that works

Who cares if they’re legal or illegal. They’re a public nuisance.

These immigrants do take up additional resources BUT the community and business leaders (largely) seem to agree that these immigrants are good for Springfield economically.

Not according to the citizens I’ve heard speaking at the Springfield town hall meeting. People seem upset, angry and not heard by community leaders.

https://www.reuters.com/world/us/haitian-immigrants-fueled-springfields-growth-now-us-presidential-debate-2024-09-11/

Yes, there was at least one incident of a Haitian driver causing the death of a Springfield child as well as reports of more erratic driving. But the Ohio BMV holds immigrants to the same standards as other Americans when they're getting licenses, so I'm not sure what exactly the conservative argument here is? Do you want to increase the driving requirements for all legal residents? That's a decision Ohio can make for itself.

Nobody claimed the DMV has different requirements. The claim I made was they are driving without a drivers license.

Ohio BMV says immigrants aren't getting favors when getting drivers' licenses or ID cards

Questions about the process for getting licenses and ID's have risen in recent days as controversy centers on immigrants in western Ohio.

www.statenews.org

 

[rowsdower88]

Who cares if they’re legal or illegal. They’re a public nuisance.

Lots of people care if they're legal or illegal. Establishing that these people are here legally should affect the way a lot of Americans feel about the issue. Any group of 15-20,000 people is going to have some nuisances in it.

Not according to the citizens I’ve heard speaking at the Springfield town hall meeting. People seem upset, angry and not heard by community leaders.

Have you ever been to a town hall meeting? They're not exactly representative of the body politic in my opinion. That doesn't mean their grievances shouldn't be taken seriously, but I would argue overly focusing on town hall meetings can give the wrong perception of a community's opinion.

Nobody claimed the DMV has different requirements. The claim I made was they are driving without a drivers license

The Haitian immigrant population should be held to the same standards as other Americans. Other Americans drive without licenses, they should be charged just like any Haitian should.

 

[greatnt249]

Who cares if they’re legal or illegal. They’re a public nuisance.

It's kind of important to distinguish their legal status if you're going to go on national television and use these alleged "episodes" as an attack against illegal immigration as a major part of your campaign strategy.

 

[GassmanMD]

Lots of people care if they're legal or illegal. Establishing that these people are here legally should affect the way a lot of Americans feel about the issue.

The immigration argument coming from the right revolves around two aspects of immigration policy: 1) legality and 2) vetting. Even Trump, the most racist and xenophobic monster amongst us all wants legal, well vetted immigration. If Springfield wasn’t making the news over the issues revolving the Haitians, we wouldn’t be discussing it so the fact that it’s a hot topic proves on some level that there is trouble on the ground. So no, the legality of the Haitians was not enough to overcome the lack of vetting, and therefore Americans in Springfield are not feeling great about their presence. At the end of the day, it’s only their opinions that matter, not ours, not community or business leaders.

Any group of 15-20,000 people is going to have some nuisances in it.

Adding 20,000 Haitians is not the same as adding 20,000 people from Tokyo. I’ll use Tokyo as an example because the Leftists on this forum have already acknowledged that a city full of Japanese is not equivalent to a city full of Americans. I’ll leave it at that.

Have you ever been to a town hall meeting? They're not exactly representative of the body politic in my opinion. That doesn't mean their grievances shouldn't be taken seriously, but I would argue overly focusing on town hall meetings can give the wrong perception of a community's opinion.

I’m willing to wait and see what happens to Springfield.

The Haitian immigrant population should be held to the same standards as other Americans. Other Americans drive without licenses, they should be charged just like any Haitian should.

Agreed.

 

[rowsdower88]

If Springfield wasn’t making the news over the issues revolving the Haitians, we wouldn’t be discussing it so the fact that it’s a hot topic proves on some level that there is trouble on the ground

This isn't true at all. We're talking about it because JD and Trump lied and overdramatized aspects of the problems.

JD Vance admits he is willing to ‘create stories’ to get media attention

Republican vice-presidential candidate defends spreading false, racist claims demonizing Haitian immigrants

amp.theguardian.com

Even Trump, the most racist and xenophobic monster amongst us all wants legal, well vetted immigration.

Historically, Trump wants to limit even legal immigration. Maybe he has changed his mind on it, but his policy efforts have been limited at reducing illegal immigration but very successful at reducing legal immigration.

https://www.cato.org/blog/president-trump-reduced-legal-immigration-he-did-not-reduce-illegal-immigration

So no, the legality of the Haitians was not enough to overcome the lack of vetting, and therefore Americans in Springfield are not feeling great about their presence.

Springfield hasn't seen a significant increase in crime rates (relative tothe past few decades). I'm not sure what you want vetting to accomplish or think increased vetting would fix here.

"Springfield police have also refuted claims that immigrants are squatting and performing illegal activities, saying this information has no verified instances of such activity."

https://www.wdtn.com/as-seen-on-2-news/springfield-police-on-claims-of-haitian-crimes-no-credible-reports/

Springfield, OH has a high crime rate but that's been true for over two decades according to this website. The recent Haitian migrant population has increased substantially only over the last 4-5 years.

Crime in Springfield, Ohio (OH): murders, rapes, robberies, assaults, burglaries, thefts, auto thefts, arson, law enforcement employees, police officers, crime map

 

[pgg]

Just trying to pin down where you stand. A variety of recent acts have been described as stochastic terrorism including the congressional baseball shooting, Whitmer kidnapping plot, Buffalo shooting, Pelosi attack, Gabby Giffords shooting, 2018 mail bombings, Jan6, etc. So, it would seem not so rare to make at least make the claim that this type of rhetoric is dangerous. Are you skeptical of these examples as well? What makes the recent Trump assassination attempts different, why can't we apply the "stochastic terrorism" label in these cases? Is it unreasonable to "ask" to tone down the rhetoric in all the above examples?

It's worth noting that when someone tries to shoot Trump, the Biden and Harris campaigns immediately and clearly condemn it.

Meanwhile, this is the sort of response we get from the Trump clan:

Both sides are not the same.

 

[GassmanMD]

This isn't true at all. We're talking about it because JD and Trump lied and overdramatized aspects of the problems.

No. That’s why YOU are talking about it. Like I said, I was aware of the Springfield situation before I watched the debate and I have no idea what JD says because I’ve listened to barely anything he’s ever said. I’d say the majority of what I’ve heard JD Vance say comes directly from you or this forum, like the divorce discussion we had.

Historically, Trump wants to limit even legal immigration. Maybe he has changed his mind on it, but his policy efforts have been limited at reducing illegal immigration but very successful at reducing legal immigration.

https://www.cato.org/blog/president-trump-reduced-legal-immigration-he-did-not-reduce-illegal-immigration

I bet Trumps attempts at immigration control are just as futile as the Lefts failed attempts at gun control. Maybe there is a parallel: you try limiting guns but what ends up happening is fewer good guys with guns and more bad guys with guns. You can convince me that Trumps immigration policy has a similar effect.

Springfield hasn't seen a significant increase in crime rates (relative tothe past few decades). I'm not sure what you want vetting to accomplish or think increased vetting would fix here.

"Springfield police have also refuted claims that immigrants are squatting and performing illegal activities, saying this information has no verified instances of such activity."

https://www.wdtn.com/as-seen-on-2-news/springfield-police-on-claims-of-haitian-crimes-no-credible-reports/

Springfield, OH has a high crime rate but that's been true for over two decades according to this website. The recent Haitian migrant population has increased substantially over the last 4-5 years.

Crime in Springfield, Ohio (OH): murders, rapes, robberies, assaults, burglaries, thefts, auto thefts, arson, law enforcement employees, police officers, crime map

Here is one data point for you in the anti-Haitian category. It’ll take time for the entire picture to develop in Springfield specifically, as this migrant wasn’t in Springfield. Again, let’s wait and see what happens. Not too interested in keeping this debate going. We can keep an eye on the situation as it unfolds. Glad you are now engaged in the topic.

Haitian migrant accused of raping teen girl in Boston freed on $500 bail

Cory Alvarez, who had been held without bail since his March arrest, was freed on $500 bail on Tuesday.

nypost.com

 

[rowsdower88]

America is a better place than many on the Right would have you believe.

Springfield church’s greeting cards help residents welcome Haitian neighbors

A Springfield area church is asking organizations that work with Haitian residents to help pass out cards people can use to greet people in Creole.

www.springfieldnewssun.com

 

[We'llBeDoneIn15Minutes]

It's worth noting that when someone tries to shoot Trump, the Biden and Harris campaigns immediately and clearly condemn it.

Yup, just like last time, "Need to turn down the rhetoric,"

hours before amping the rhetoric right back up again....

I'm sure Trump would prefer the Democrat clown car coming out and explaining dictator, fine Nazi people, and bloodshed are dishonest misrepresentations, rather than after the fact condemning another assassination attempt on the "Dictator."

 

[GassmanMD]

Yup, just like last time, "Need to turn down the rhetoric,"

hours before amping the rhetoric right back up again....

I'm sure Trump would prefer the Democrat clown car coming out and explaining dictator, fine Nazi people, and bloodshed are dishonest misrepresentations, rather than after the fact condemning another assassination attempt on the "Dictator."

I don’t understand why the Democrats condemn these assassination attempts. If Trump is truly and honestly as bad as their rhetoric depicts him to be, shouldn’t they be praising the assassins? Trump is a threat to our democracy, he’s like Hitler, so I don’t understand the condemnations. It seems contradictory to me. Somebody reconcile it for me.

 

[We'llBeDoneIn15Minutes]

I don’t understand why the Democrats condemn these assassination attempts. If Trump is truly and honestly as bad as their rhetoric depicts him to be, shouldn’t they be praising the assassins? Trump is a threat to our democracy, he’s like Hitler, so I don’t understand the condemnations. It seems contradictory to me. Somebody reconcile it for me.

Man you really nailed the hypocrisy of their bull-doo.

 

[rowsdower88]

I don’t understand why the Democrats condemn these assassination attempts. If Trump is truly and honestly as bad as their rhetoric depicts him to be, shouldn’t they be praising the assassins? Trump is a threat to our democracy, he’s like Hitler, so I don’t understand the condemnations. It seems contradictory to me. Somebody reconcile it for me.

Commitment to liberal values and democratic norms > hypothetical utilitarian calculation with very high uncertainties

We have the hindsight of Hitler, we don't have the hindsight of a second Trump term. That doesn't mean he hasn't been, and continues to be, a threat to American democracy.

On a personal level, Trump deserves to lose he doesn't deserve to be murdered.

 

[pgg]

I don’t understand why the Democrats condemn these assassination attempts. If Trump is truly and honestly as bad as their rhetoric depicts him to be, shouldn’t they be praising the assassins? Trump is a threat to our democracy, he’s like Hitler, so I don’t understand the condemnations. It seems contradictory to me. Somebody reconcile it for me.

I'm not the least bit surprised that someone of your moral character can't understand why the other side isn't as eager to cheer and support violent acts as his own.

@rowsdower88 just spelled it out for you, but I'm sure you'll find a way to twist his words, or fail to understand them, or conjure some kind of false equivalence both-sides-bad-ism.

 

[nimbus]

I don’t understand why the Democrats condemn these assassination attempts. If Trump is truly and honestly as bad as their rhetoric depicts him to be, shouldn’t they be praising the assassins? Trump is a threat to our democracy, he’s like Hitler, so I don’t understand the condemnations. It seems contradictory to me. Somebody reconcile it for me.

Political assassinations are also a threat to democracy.

 

[Splenda88]

I don’t understand why the Democrats condemn these assassination attempts. If Trump is truly and honestly as bad as their rhetoric depicts him to be, shouldn’t they be praising the assassins? Trump is a threat to our democracy, he’s like Hitler, so I don’t understand the condemnations. It seems contradictory to me. Somebody reconcile it for me.

I actually don't think Kamala should stop saying that Trump is an existential threat to democracy. After all, he tried to overturn an election. This is not up for dispute.

I don't think Trump should stop saying Harris is marxist/communist and we won't have a country if she is elected.

However, that does not mean people are condoning political violence.

 

[DocMcCoy]

It's worth noting that when someone tries to shoot Trump, the Biden and Harris campaigns immediately and clearly condemn it.

Meanwhile, this is the sort of response we get from the Trump clan:

View attachment 392381

Both sides are not the same.

Well Donnie Jr would be a close second for the entitled ex-president douche bag child award.

Seriously, it isn’t hard to find a slew of examples of politicians and entertainers with a large media footprint wishing the shooter wouldn’t have missed or suggesting it’s all just a MAGA hoax.

What do you call it when that sentiment leads to 1/3 of polled democrats believing it was a hoax and/or wishing it was successful?

Is Donald Trump the victim of stochastic terrorism?

unherd.com

One in three Biden supporters think Trump shooting might have been staged

More than 33 percent of the president's supporters believe the conspiracy theory is "credible," according to a new poll.

www.newsweek.com

 

[We'llBeDoneIn15Minutes]

Political assassinations are also a threat to democracy.

Bull****
He's either Hitler or he isn't. You don't get it both ways,
"He's Hitler, but it would be bad for democracy to assassinate him."
How in the pgg does that make any sense?

 

[Splenda88]

Bull****
He's either Hitler or he isn't. You don't get it both ways,
"He's Hitler, but it would be bad for democracy to assassinate him."
How in the pgg does that make any sense?

Maybe I am not following the news that much.

Can you show me where a leader in the democratic party called Trump Hitler?

 

[rowsdower88]

What do you call it when that sentiment leads to 1/3 of polled democrats believing it was a hoax and/or wishing it was successful?

Little surprised it's only that high. Also, I dont see any polling for "wishing it was successful".
Worth noting a clear majority (62%) believe it wasn't a hoax, that should hopefully increase with time.

This was pretty funny:

"And even some of Trump's own supporters believe the same thing, with around 12 percent suspecting the event was planned, according to the poll conducted by Morning Consult, an American business intelligence company."

 

[DocMcCoy]

Little surprised it's only that high. Also, I dont see any polling for "wishing it was successful".
Worth noting a clear majority (62%) believe it wasn't a hoax, that should hopefully increase with time.

This was pretty funny:

"And even some of Trump's own supporters believe the same thing, with around 12 percent suspecting the event was planned, according to the poll conducted by Morning Consult, an American business intelligence company."

1/3 pretty big numbers.

Posted wrong article. This poll does…

Third of Democrats wish Donald Trump had been killed

A third of Democratic voters I surveyed in a snap poll on 18 July openly agreed with the statement “I wish Trump’s assassin hadn’t missed.” Looking beneath the numbers, the new moral absolutism of the progressive Left picks out which Democrats support assassination and which do not. The...

unherd.com

 

[Splenda88]

1/3 pretty big numbers.

Posted wrong article. This poll does…

Third of Democrats wish Donald Trump had been killed

A third of Democratic voters I surveyed in a snap poll on 18 July openly agreed with the statement “I wish Trump’s assassin hadn’t missed.” Looking beneath the numbers, the new moral absolutism of the progressive Left picks out which Democrats support assassination and which do not. The...

unherd.com

You don't think if they take a poll among republicans that a 1/3 of them would be happy if Biden/Harris got killed.

 

[DocMcCoy]

You don't think if they take a poll among republicans that a 1/3 of them would be happy if Biden/Harris got killed.

I know that -

1. I haven’t seen such a poll and most importantly, 2. Nobody has tried.

 

[We'llBeDoneIn15Minutes]

1/3 pretty big numbers.

Posted wrong article. This poll does…

Third of Democrats wish Donald Trump had been killed

A third of Democratic voters I surveyed in a snap poll on 18 July openly agreed with the statement “I wish Trump’s assassin hadn’t missed.” Looking beneath the numbers, the new moral absolutism of the progressive Left picks out which Democrats support assassination and which do not. The...

unherd.com

If I truly in my heart believed the nonsense rhetoric I'd be in that group.

 

[marr65]

I know that -

1. I haven’t seen such a poll and most importantly, 2. Nobody has tried.

LOL. No one needs to try a poll for that. We all know that 100% of Republicans would cheer it on. Trump posted a picture of Biden hog-tied and not a word of condemnation from a single Republican.

Trump shares image depicting Biden tied up in back of pickup truck

The former president has previously used violent images and rhetoric as he seeks a return to the White House.

www.nbcnews.com

 

[Splenda88]

I keep asking where a leader in the democratic party said Trump is Hitler... Can someone show it to me please?

 

[DocMcCoy]

LOL. No one needs to try a poll for that. We all know that 100% of Republicans would cheer it on. Trump posted a picture of Biden hog-tied and not a word of condemnation from a single Republican.

Trump shares image depicting Biden tied up in back of pickup truck

The former president has previously used violent images and rhetoric as he seeks a return to the White House.

www.nbcnews.com

LOL. No one needs to try a poll for that. We all know that 100% of Republicans would cheer it on. Trump posted a picture of Biden hog-tied and not a word of condemnation from a single Republican.

Trump shares image depicting Biden tied up in back of pickup truck

The former president has previously used violent images and rhetoric as he seeks a return to the White House.

www.nbcnews.com

Right…. Here is condemnation from a republican. It was stupid, dangerous rhetoric especially in the current political climate.

It would also be prudent to point out that thankfully nobody has tried to literally hog tie and kidnap president Biden in the wake of that rhetoric.

 

[Southpaw]

Right…. Here is condemnation from a republican. It was stupid, dangerous rhetoric especially in the current political climate.

It would also be prudent to point out that thankfully nobody has tried to literally hog tie and kidnap president Biden in the wake of that rhetoric.

While it’s nice to get condemnation from A Republican it’d sure be nice if THE republicans (Trump and Vance) didn’t post a picture of Biden tied up in the back of a pick up truck or call THE Republican presidential nominee Hitler.

Leadership starts at the top.

 

[MirrorTodd]

While it’s nice to get condemnation from A Republican it’d sure be nice if THE republicans (Trump and Vance) didn’t post a picture of Biden tied up in the back of a pick up truck or call THE Republican presidential nominee Hitler.

Leadership starts at the top.

Or have Trumps (likely) LARGEST donor posting **** like this on the social media he bought...
https://www.cnn.com/2024/09/16/tech/elon-musk-biden-trump-assassination-attempt/index.html

“And no one is even trying to assassinate Biden/Kamala 🤔,” Musk wrote in the now-deleted X post.

I'm sure he was "just joking" 🙄

 

[Splenda88]

Kamala Harris in 'danger zone' in swing states says CNN data reporter: National polls 'don't matter'

CNN data reporter Harry Enten sounded the alarm about Vice President Kamala Harris' swing-state poll numbers on Monday and said she was in the "danger zone."

www.yahoo.com

 

[GassmanMD]

Political assassinations are also a threat to democracy.

What about weaponization of the justice system against a political opponent? Is that a threat to democracy?

 

[GassmanMD]

Commitment to liberal values and democratic norms > hypothetical utilitarian calculation with very high uncertainties

I’ve been arguing that the democrats are destroying liberal values and democratic norms, so I don’t understand this point. It doesn’t compute.

We have the hindsight of Hitler, we don't have the hindsight of a second Trump term. That doesn't mean he hasn't been, and continues to be, a threat to American democracy.

We do have hindsight about trump, he already served a term. You really don’t see the contradiction implicit in your statement here?

On a personal level, Trump deserves to lose he doesn't deserve to be murdered.

 

[GassmanMD]

I actually don't think Kamala should stop saying that Trump is an existential threat to democracy. After all, he tried to overturn an election. This is not up for dispute.

I don't think Trump should stop saying Harris is marxist/communist and we won't have a country if she is elected.

However, that does not mean people are condoning political violence.

I respect your commitment to the middle. What I said doesn’t apply to you.

 

[greatnt249]

Bull****
He's either Hitler or he isn't. You don't get it both ways,
"He's Hitler, but it would be bad for democracy to assassinate him."
How in the pgg does that make any sense?

Because you don't need to kill a guy to keep him out of power? Didn't think that needed to be spelled out for people.

 

[MirrorTodd]

What about weaponization of the justice system against a political opponent? Is that a threat to democracy?

Gee whiz that sure would be a threat if that's what was actually happening.

 

[rowsdower88]

I’ve been arguing that the democrats are destroying liberal values and democratic norms, so I don’t understand this point. It doesn’t compute.

I don't know what liberal values you're thinking of, but I think Trump is a threat to the rule of law. I think most people consider the rule of law to be a liberal value. I don't need to make vague appeals to Marxism or Hegel to get that across. I'll cite the Jan 6th report and their findings. If you dispute their findings you would be the first person to do so on here, that could be interesting. I don't believe he is the victim of "weaponization of the justice department".

Select January 6th Committee Final Report and Supporting Materials Collection

www.govinfo.gov

We do have hindsight about trump, he already served a term. You really don’t see the contradiction implicit in your statement here?

He attempted to subvert an election and should not be entrusted with power again. What contradiction do you see that is implicit here? I don't think he should be murdered, I think he should be prosecuted.

 

[Splenda88]

Trump Campaign Adviser Takes 'Hell' Of A Swipe At Ted Cruz's Team Amid Senate Race

Chris LaCivita questioned what was "wrong" with the race as the Texas senator looks to win reelection.

www.yahoo.com