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.
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?
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.
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 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
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
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.
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
“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.
I’m not a he, I’m nonbinary. They/them please.
Removed by mod
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.
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.
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
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.
Bernie always a gentleman
He’s right.
