Many people on the left do have guns, but they also have other things to go along with guns: self-control and a sense of decency.
I’d add on that most on the left have also studied enough to know that people love martyrs and that very few deaths of public figures would substantially change our society.
I’d describe myself as a raging leftist, and I can count on one hand the people whose assassination I think would result in beneficial change for our society even with any blowback of support and counter assassinations. MTG has never been close to that level.
Dismantling systems of oppression and changing the way people think is far more effective.
The issue with this thinking is that you assume that once those in power will easily let it go. We are in a time right now where kids are dumber than ever and social media controls their lives. Its how Andrew taint got so big. Gotta get rid of the fascist first before you can change the education system to fix what they have broken, otherwise they’ll do it all over again.
They know the price of guns.
The right has been terrorizing this country with impunity for over 100years
But many people kept saying BoTh sIDeS around a certain persons death.
Yeah, fuck those people. And fuck Charlie Kirk.
Protect ya neck
From the Mossad
Right through his neck hole!
There’s some things that both sides can generally agree on. Brian Thomson, for example. Seems the only people who had a problem with his death had >$10 million stock portfolios.
Womps and prayers to the harpy.
You wrestle with pigs you’re going to get shit on ya. Sorry babe.
Karma, uh, finds a way.
At a glance I read, Kamala, finds a way. And that gave me a chuckle.
It’s beyond politics… It’s a legal modern mafia. Wake up. There is no democracy.
there really isn’t… Why are people denying that truth so hard…? It’s like it’s out of fear of reality. Overcome that fear so you build modern life in honest reality because if your reality is not honest you are only building a faulty foundation.
I wanted a 3rd party, just not like this.
You get an alt alt right party. A finger on the money’s paw curls.
You might be tempted to change it cause of the typo, but this is more apt
Someone got smacked by the FAFO principle.
Not hard enough, I’d say. A judge’s house was burnt down recently. They’ve gone easy on her.
#GOOD
And thats ultimately why they keep coming out on top. You’re not using enough violence.
Violence is a central tenet of America, left and right.
Per the NIJ article on domestic terrorism, violence is predominantly used by the right.
Since 1990, the count is at 227 events by the far right versus 42 by the far left. A 5.4x difference.
The difference is even greater in the number of lives taken. 520 by the far-right, and 78 by the far-left. A 6.6x difference.And? I didn’t say it was a required ritual. It’s a tenet of our national identity. I know more left-wing people with firearms or other weapons and the ability to use them than I do those on the right. Yes, the far right typically are the ones to use personal violence - the American left typically goes for scale. Like say, Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
Found a fash.
I’d love to know how you cherry pick what qualifies as violence.
Just at J6 alone there were thousands of violent people who stormed the capitol.
Thats 1 day. 1 event. It alone takes your 226 and balloons it into closer 2,000 people, with some estimates saying closer to 2,500.
So to me your numbers mean nothing, as they cherry pick what is “violence”, that I’m not even going to attempt to verify your results. I already know that for every 1 result you count, there’s 10-50 that you missed.
You don’t have to guess, its a specific article by the NIJ that was noted.
It was also pulled by the DOJ because they didnt like what it said right after Kirk was shot.
It was, however, very quickly archived.
You can look up NIJ methodology if you are concerned. I would generally agree with you that it is undercounted/underreported and there is a lot more conservative violence than we know about.
Conservatism always looks to create an outside group it uses to exploit and blame their self-derived problems on. See currently blaming the immigrants for taking jobs and benefits away from working class Americans when it is really our existing system that does this in the name of profits.
Damn, shit was spelled out for you and you still got it wrong. Wild.
American politics don’t have a left, though. We seriously don’t. Choices are between right pretending to lean left and Nazis.
Yeah, Mamdani really is right pretending to be left
If you think Mamdani, a single person, makes the rest of the Democrats left leaning, you are crazy. The establishment Democrats did not want Mamdani on the ballot as a D
On top of that, I’ve been told he can never be president.
The 14th Amendment clearly states that Trump, having held office and then participated in an insurrection, could not hold any government office, including that of the President. It is not a requirement that he be convicted, by the way. According to our US Constitution, he was simply ineligible for office, so if we’re following the Constitution, then he isn’t currently President. As JD Vance wasn’t sworn in, either, the office is simply vacant.
So, basically, my point is that what you’re saying is only true if we’re following the Constitution. Since we’re not following the Constitution, it’s not clear what the rules are anymore. Just ask Trump with his Trump 2028 merchandise.
The argument is probably that (A) the only way to say that he participated is to convict him, otherwise he’s considered innocent and (B) he didn’t participate, he just incited it (using language that was just vague enough to make it difficult to prove).
I think you’re essentially correct with regard to the text, but I think if you take the obvious intentions of the authors into account, then Trump shouldn’t have been allowed to run, and shouldn’t have been allowed to be sworn in.
It’s a giant problem, but I think that if you look into the circumstances of the 14th Amendment, it was clearly to stop officials from the Confederacy from becoming US government officials, the vast majority of whom (all of whom?) were never convicted of insurrection. I think the authors intentions were clear. If you engaged in something that was like an insurrection, then you simply can’t run for office, even if the situation was not completely clear. I think the amendment was more-or-less designed to prevent people in almost the exact same situation as Trump from becoming government officials.
The exception that proves the rule. What’s your point? I mean, c’mon, the Democratic party leadership shunned him rather openly.
Removed by mod
As awful as she is, her pulling away from MAGA can only help in giving some followers a chance at coming to their senses.
If they didn’t come to their senses after January 6th, they aren’t ever going to. They had their chance.
I mean, yes, but also any movement towards the light should be welcome.
Don’t be foolish. If a former enemy moves towards agreement with you, welcome them no matter how distasteful you find them. She has shown a capacity for change. Encourage it in others by accepting it in her.
If she keeps it up after a reelection, I’ll consider it. Otherwise she’s just playing the game.
I did read that her constituents support her over Trump, so it’ll be interesting to see how it plays out.
I do hope she was serious when she acknowledged her own role in promoting political violence and does change her ways. But I’m skeptical that it’ll stick. We’ll see.
No. Any hint of resistance toward Trump on the right is extremely rare and should be encouraged.
