The right to own a gun is perhaps the most preposterous right ever granted by a government. (and please don't tell me about ensuring the people's right to fight against their own government when it becomes too tyrannical. No government, including ours, has ever done that. It is a myth.)
And the fact that we have more guns than people is significant. I'm pretty sure that we're the only country in the history of the universe to have this situation.
But sure, ignore it.
You are for the government disarming the populace and censoring their speech. The fact that you go around calling others authoritarian is simply remarkable.
overly simplistic, but sure, fair enough, as far as it goes. but then you're a "guns don't kill, people do" guy, so simplicity is your thing. and you think the twitter files is a thing too.
and don't forget I'm for taxation too, which we all know is theft.
btw, just to be clear, I never said that people shouldn't be able to own guns. It should simply be highly regulated, as most of the rest of the world does it. The ability to own a gun should be established legislatively, not constitutionally. Enshrining it as a right (and under a ridiculously worded constitutional amendment) just leads to mischief, as we have seen by the way the courts and gun industry have turned the 2A into a mockery of its original intent, and consequently turned us into a gun-ridden hellhole.
Just to be clear, you are on the record as being opposed to the first 2 amendments in the Bill of Rights.
The right to own a gun is perhaps the most preposterous right ever granted by a government. (and please don't tell me about ensuring the people's right to fight against their own government when it becomes too tyrannical. No government, including ours, has ever done that. It is a myth.)
And the fact that we have more guns than people is significant. I'm pretty sure that we're the only country in the history of the universe to have this situation.
But sure, ignore it.
You are for the government disarming the populace and censoring their speech. The fact that you go around calling others authoritarian is simply remarkable.
overly simplistic, but sure, fair enough, as far as it goes. but then you're a "guns don't kill, people do" guy, so simplicity is your thing. and you think the twitter files is a thing too.
and don't forget I'm for taxation too, which we all know is theft.
btw, just to be clear, I never said that people shouldn't be able to own guns. It should simply be highly regulated, as most of the rest of the world does it. The ability to own a gun should be established legislatively, not constitutionally. Enshrining it as a right (and under a ridiculously worded constitutional amendment) just leads to mischief, as we have seen by the way the courts and gun industry have turned the 2A into a mockery of its original intent, and consequently turned us into a gun-ridden hellhole.
Just to be clear, you are on the record as being opposed to the first 2 amendments in the Bill of Rights.
not much for nuance are ya?
I'm all for repealing the 2A though. It's garbage as written, and has had its true meaning utterly ignored and corrupted by 2A fanatics. Maybe you think that's a good thing.
But the 1A involves too many rights, so I'm not opposed to it completely. I do think that speech can and should be responsibly regulated. Again, making things a constitutional right can be problematic, leading to mischief. e.g. the court's reading of the 1A has enshrined that corporations have the same rights as people (as long its convenient for business, anyway) and that money equals speech, leading to Citizen's United. Again, maybe you think these are good outcomes, but if you're going to take an anti-authoritarian take, you can't possibly believe that. But you probably do anyway.
The right to own a gun is perhaps the most preposterous right ever granted by a government. (and please don't tell me about ensuring the people's right to fight against their own government when it becomes too tyrannical. No government, including ours, has ever done that. It is a myth.)
And the fact that we have more guns than people is significant. I'm pretty sure that we're the only country in the history of the universe to have this situation.
But sure, ignore it.
You are for the government disarming the populace and censoring their speech. The fact that you go around calling others authoritarian is simply remarkable.
overly simplistic, but sure, fair enough, as far as it goes. but then you're a "guns don't kill, people do" guy, so simplicity is your thing. and you think the twitter files is a thing too.
and don't forget I'm for taxation too, which we all know is theft.
btw, just to be clear, I never said that people shouldn't be able to own guns. It should simply be highly regulated, as most of the rest of the world does it. The ability to own a gun should be established legislatively, not constitutionally. Enshrining it as a right (and under a ridiculously worded constitutional amendment) just leads to mischief, as we have seen by the way the courts and gun industry have turned the 2A into a mockery of its original intent, and consequently turned us into a gun-ridden hellhole.
Just to be clear, you are on the record as being opposed to the first 2 amendments in the Bill of Rights.
not much for nuance are ya?
I'm all for repealing the 2A though. It's garbage as written, and has had its true meaning utterly ignored and corrupted by 2A fanatics. Maybe you think that's a good thing.
But the 1A involves too many rights, so I'm not opposed to it completely. I do think that speech can and should be responsibly regulated. Again, making things a constitutional right can be problematic, leading to mischief. e.g. the court's reading of the 1A has enshrined that corporations have the same rights as people (as long its convenient for business, anyway) and that money equals speech, leading to Citizen's United. Again, maybe you think these are good outcomes, but if you're going to take an anti-authoritarian take, you can't possibly believe that. But you probably do anyway.
Thank you for your honesty. You are clearly an authoritarian.
The right to own a gun is perhaps the most preposterous right ever granted by a government. (and please don't tell me about ensuring the people's right to fight against their own government when it becomes too tyrannical. No government, including ours, has ever done that. It is a myth.)
And the fact that we have more guns than people is significant. I'm pretty sure that we're the only country in the history of the universe to have this situation.
But sure, ignore it.
You are for the government disarming the populace and censoring their speech. The fact that you go around calling others authoritarian is simply remarkable.
overly simplistic, but sure, fair enough, as far as it goes. but then you're a "guns don't kill, people do" guy, so simplicity is your thing. and you think the twitter files is a thing too.
and don't forget I'm for taxation too, which we all know is theft.
btw, just to be clear, I never said that people shouldn't be able to own guns. It should simply be highly regulated, as most of the rest of the world does it. The ability to own a gun should be established legislatively, not constitutionally. Enshrining it as a right (and under a ridiculously worded constitutional amendment) just leads to mischief, as we have seen by the way the courts and gun industry have turned the 2A into a mockery of its original intent, and consequently turned us into a gun-ridden hellhole.
Just to be clear, you are on the record as being opposed to the first 2 amendments in the Bill of Rights.
not much for nuance are ya?
I'm all for repealing the 2A though. It's garbage as written, and has had its true meaning utterly ignored and corrupted by 2A fanatics. Maybe you think that's a good thing.
But the 1A involves too many rights, so I'm not opposed to it completely. I do think that speech can and should be responsibly regulated. Again, making things a constitutional right can be problematic, leading to mischief. e.g. the court's reading of the 1A has enshrined that corporations have the same rights as people (as long its convenient for business, anyway) and that money equals speech, leading to Citizen's United. Again, maybe you think these are good outcomes, but if you're going to take an anti-authoritarian take, you can't possibly believe that. But you probably do anyway.
Thank you for your honesty. You are clearly an authoritarian.
I'm seeing claims that calling Trump fascist is to blame for the assassination attempt.
Why not blame Trump for being a fascist. His rallies are full of rhetoric that echoes Nazis. And pointing it out is what's inflammatory?
As long as we're calling for "toning down the rhetoric" -
The shooting on Saturday took place just as Trump was in the middle of the part of his speech where, using a chart, he was discussing the "20 million illegals" that he was going to round up and deport. Of course, "There aren’t 20 million to 30 million immigrants in the U.S. illegally". Maybe tone down that rhetoric, for starters.
He’s laying on the floor, bleeding, he tells the guys holding him down to let him stand up to salute the crowd to show them he’s okay. He stands up with his fist raised and shouts “fight fight fight”….
I don’t trust anyone who has been lying to and cheating the people. He might very well use this to stir up more violence. Remember they used effigies of Biden for target practice? Remember when he said that the second amendment people should resolve the problem that is Hillary Clinton? Remember M.T Greene's video in which she promised to "blow away the Democrats socialist agenda" as she took aim with a rifle? remember house republicans wearing AR15 lapel pins on the floor of Congress? The death threats to the election workers? The kidnapping plot for governor Whitmer? he’s becoming more and more like Putin and lil Kim, he’s crazy.
Not to muddy the threads…meanwhile, the classified documents case has been dismissed (Judge believes Jack Smith should never have been appointed to this case)
He’s laying on the floor, bleeding, he tells the guys holding him down to let him stand up to salute the crowd to show them he’s okay. He stands up with his fist raised and shouts “fight fight fight”….
I don’t trust anyone who has been lying to and cheating the people. He might very well use this to stir up more violence. Remember they used effigies of Biden for target practice? Remember when he said that the second amendment people should resolve the problem that is Hillary Clinton? Remember M.T Greene's video in which she promised to "blow away the Democrats socialist agenda" as she took aim with a rifle? remember house republicans wearing AR15 lapel pins on the floor of Congress? The death threats to the election workers? The kidnapping plot for governor Whitmer? he’s becoming more and more like Putin and lil Kim, he’s crazy.
I would be shocked if Trump and other surrogates don't use this event to incite more violence. He'll use euphemisms like "2nd Amendment people" to give himself deniability. But violent rhetoric has been part of his toolbox forever, so there's no reason to think he'll ramp it down now.
We may never know exactly what motivated Crooks, and even if we do it may not be rational. But it's not hard to imagine his motive being an attempt to provoke large scale violence across the country. The simplest explanation is he wanted to kill Trump because he hated him. But there aren't many rational political reasons to think killing him would help Joe Biden or the Democrats. From an electoral standpoint, Trump himself is their only advantage. Somehow it escapes notice in the discussion of Biden's shortcomings but most people hate Trump. Getting him off the ballot and replaced by a less repugnant person who pursues all the same MAGA policies would probably result in a GOP landslide.
We'll see how events unfold over the next few weeks and months, but retaliatory violence all over the country isn't outside the realm of possibility.
Not to muddy the threads…meanwhile, the classified documents case has been dismissed (Judge believes Jack Smith should never have been appointed to this case)
It's what Trump demands since the shooting at his rally.
As we move forward in Uniting our Nation after the horrific events on Saturday, this dismissal of the Lawless Indictment in Florida should be just the first step, followed quickly by the dismissal of ALL the Witch Hunts — The January 6th Hoax in Washington, D.C., the Manhattan…
— Donald J. Trump Posts From His Truth Social (@TrumpDailyPosts) July 15, 2024
There's QAnon and then there's BlueAnon -- conspiracy theories promoted by Democrats and pro-Democratic corporate media, often hatched by intelligence agencies, as exemplified by Russiagate and its 2024 incarnations. Here's some BlueAnon on the attempted Trump assassination from an adviser to one of the Democrats' top donors (spoiler alert: Putin did it):
you're really reaching here. conspiracy theories that do not see the light of day , like this one, are not conspiracy theories. it's just some guy saying a thing. which he then retracted.
some guy said a thing is not a conspiracy theory.
compare and contrast to 2020 election denial.
or to Biden runs a pedophile ring
and on and on.
haven't seen blueanon before. did you make that up, or is it a real thing in your circles? hope for the former, but probably the latter.
I'm sure I remember you as a serious person.
What happened, or did I just misinterpret you in the beginning?
ETA: sorry, but I just can't get over how ridiculous this post is. it's Olympics level whataboutery.
Looks like Jonathan Chait said something to Chris Hayes in 2018, about the time Donald Trump was talking about not supporting NATO -
"JONATHAN CHAIT, WRITER, NEW YORK MAGAZINE: so that`s a great question, Chris. I get that all the time. So first –so first of all, the piece acknowledged that that is probably not true but it might be. And one of the reasons I wrote this is you need to take seriously some of these low probability, high impact scenarios. You know, before the election sort of everyone heard that Hillary Clinton had about an 80 percent chance of winning and we all just treated it like that meant a hundred percent and didn`t think about what would that 20 percent alternative really mean. So that`s part of what I`m doing with this – with aspects of this piece like this trip to Moscow. You know, what would it mean if it – if it really went that deep. Now, there`s a lot of ways in which this scandal could be really bad and not go that deep but I think you need to consider that for another reason which is that everyone always says well, this has been Trump`s view forever"
I would be shocked if Trump and other surrogates don't use this event to incite more violence. He'll use euphemisms like "2nd Amendment people" to give himself deniability. But violent rhetoric has been part of his toolbox forever, so there's no reason to think he'll ramp it down now.
We may never know exactly what motivated Crooks, and even if we do it may not be rational. But it's not hard to imagine his motive being an attempt to provoke large scale violence across the country. The simplest explanation is he wanted to kill Trump because he hated him. But there aren't many rational political reasons to think killing him would help Joe Biden or the Democrats. From an electoral standpoint, Trump himself is their only advantage. Somehow it escapes notice in the discussion of Biden's shortcomings but most people hate Trump. Getting him off the ballot and replaced by a less repugnant person who pursues all the same MAGA policies would probably result in a GOP landslide.
We'll see how events unfold over the next few weeks and months, but retaliatory violence all over the country isn't outside the realm of possibility.
This post is riddled with errors. Are the Dems/Deep state better served with Trump as a candidate or if the GOP had to go to convention not only without Trump but without his VP selection?
If Trump doesn't turn his head, the Republican nominee would be completely free of any connection to Trump.
I would be shocked if Trump and other surrogates don't use this event to incite more violence. He'll use euphemisms like "2nd Amendment people" to give himself deniability. But violent rhetoric has been part of his toolbox forever, so there's no reason to think he'll ramp it down now.
We may never know exactly what motivated Crooks, and even if we do it may not be rational. But it's not hard to imagine his motive being an attempt to provoke large scale violence across the country. The simplest explanation is he wanted to kill Trump because he hated him. But there aren't many rational political reasons to think killing him would help Joe Biden or the Democrats. From an electoral standpoint, Trump himself is their only advantage. Somehow it escapes notice in the discussion of Biden's shortcomings but most people hate Trump. Getting him off the ballot and replaced by a less repugnant person who pursues all the same MAGA policies would probably result in a GOP landslide.
We'll see how events unfold over the next few weeks and months, but retaliatory violence all over the country isn't outside the realm of possibility.
This post is riddled with errors. Are the Dems/Deep state better served with Trump as a candidate or if the GOP had to go to convention not only without Trump but without his VP selection?
If Trump doesn't turn his head, the Republican nominee would be completely free of any connection to Trump.
what makes you believe a potential nominee would not be someone who was ideologically aligned with Trump?
And what makes you believe the "Dems/Deep state" would know the person wouldn't be?
I suppose if one believes the Deep State controls the RNC and its delegates...
Not to muddy the threads…meanwhile, the classified documents case has been dismissed (Judge believes Jack Smith should never have been appointed to this case)
Don't worry. You have the blessed political compass. Thread drift is totally fine when it comes to anyone left of center. The one exception is Paul, but he believes in peace. And we can't have that.
I would be shocked if Trump and other surrogates don't use this event to incite more violence. He'll use euphemisms like "2nd Amendment people" to give himself deniability. But violent rhetoric has been part of his toolbox forever, so there's no reason to think he'll ramp it down now.
We may never know exactly what motivated Crooks, and even if we do it may not be rational. But it's not hard to imagine his motive being an attempt to provoke large scale violence across the country. The simplest explanation is he wanted to kill Trump because he hated him. But there aren't many rational political reasons to think killing him would help Joe Biden or the Democrats. From an electoral standpoint, Trump himself is their only advantage. Somehow it escapes notice in the discussion of Biden's shortcomings but most people hate Trump. Getting him off the ballot and replaced by a less repugnant person who pursues all the same MAGA policies would probably result in a GOP landslide.
We'll see how events unfold over the next few weeks and months, but retaliatory violence all over the country isn't outside the realm of possibility.
This post is riddled with errors. Are the Dems/Deep state better served with Trump as a candidate or if the GOP had to go to convention not only without Trump but without his VP selection?
If Trump doesn't turn his head, the Republican nominee would be completely free of any connection to Trump.
what makes you believe a potential nominee would not be someone who was ideologically aligned with Trump?
And what makes you believe the "Dems/Deep state" would know the person wouldn't be?
I suppose if one believes the Deep State controls the RNC and its delegates...
Please don't put words in my mouth. I have not made any of these claims. My only claim is that the GOP presidential ticket would not have Trump's fingerprints on it whatsoever.
The right to own a gun is perhaps the most preposterous right ever granted by a government. (and please don't tell me about ensuring the people's right to fight against their own government when it becomes too tyrannical. No government, including ours, has ever done that. It is a myth.)
And the fact that we have more guns than people is significant. I'm pretty sure that we're the only country in the history of the universe to have this situation.
But sure, ignore it.
You are for the government disarming the populace and censoring their speech. The fact that you go around calling others authoritarian is simply remarkable.
overly simplistic, but sure, fair enough, as far as it goes. but then you're a "guns don't kill, people do" guy, so simplicity is your thing. and you think the twitter files is a thing too.
and don't forget I'm for taxation too, which we all know is theft.
btw, just to be clear, I never said that people shouldn't be able to own guns. It should simply be highly regulated, as most of the rest of the world does it. The ability to own a gun should be established legislatively, not constitutionally. Enshrining it as a right (and under a ridiculously worded constitutional amendment) just leads to mischief, as we have seen by the way the courts and gun industry have turned the 2A into a mockery of its original intent, and consequently turned us into a gun-ridden hellhole.
Just to be clear, you are on the record as being opposed to the first 2 amendments in the Bill of Rights.
not much for nuance are ya?
I'm all for repealing the 2A though. It's garbage as written, and has had its true meaning utterly ignored and corrupted by 2A fanatics. Maybe you think that's a good thing.
But the 1A involves too many rights, so I'm not opposed to it completely. I do think that speech can and should be responsibly regulated. Again, making things a constitutional right can be problematic, leading to mischief. e.g. the court's reading of the 1A has enshrined that corporations have the same rights as people (as long its convenient for business, anyway) and that money equals speech, leading to Citizen's United. Again, maybe you think these are good outcomes, but if you're going to take an anti-authoritarian take, you can't possibly believe that. But you probably do anyway.
Thank you for your honesty. You are clearly an authoritarian.
It is interesting that those who claim to be protecting democracy by preventing a candidate from being elected using that exact process think the regime should control your speech, what you read and hear, and your ability to protect yourself.
I would be shocked if Trump and other surrogates don't use this event to incite more violence. He'll use euphemisms like "2nd Amendment people" to give himself deniability. But violent rhetoric has been part of his toolbox forever, so there's no reason to think he'll ramp it down now.
We may never know exactly what motivated Crooks, and even if we do it may not be rational. But it's not hard to imagine his motive being an attempt to provoke large scale violence across the country. The simplest explanation is he wanted to kill Trump because he hated him. But there aren't many rational political reasons to think killing him would help Joe Biden or the Democrats. From an electoral standpoint, Trump himself is their only advantage. Somehow it escapes notice in the discussion of Biden's shortcomings but most people hate Trump. Getting him off the ballot and replaced by a less repugnant person who pursues all the same MAGA policies would probably result in a GOP landslide.
We'll see how events unfold over the next few weeks and months, but retaliatory violence all over the country isn't outside the realm of possibility.
This post is riddled with errors. Are the Dems/Deep state better served with Trump as a candidate or if the GOP had to go to convention not only without Trump but without his VP selection?
If Trump doesn't turn his head, the Republican nominee would be completely free of any connection to Trump.
what makes you believe a potential nominee would not be someone who was ideologically aligned with Trump?
And what makes you believe the "Dems/Deep state" would know the person wouldn't be?
I suppose if one believes the Deep State controls the RNC and its delegates...
Please don't put words in my mouth. I have not made any of these claims. My only claim is that the GOP presidential ticket would not have Trump's fingerprints on it whatsoever.
what does that even mean?
of course it wouldn't have Trump's fingerprints on it. He's not type to have an heir apparent waiting. So the person would of course be picked independently of him.
but why do you think the RNC and its delegates won't pick someone from the Trumpist wing of the party? Especially after his being martyred by an assassin.
more importantly, why would these hypothetical "Dem/Deep state" actors believe if they eliminated Trump the next nominee up wouldn't also embrace the likes of Project 2025 and Agenda 47?
pretty flimsy and frankly risky hopes to hang a conspiracy on, especially for Democrats.
Perhaps my reading comprehension needs work, but that sure read like: Why not blame the victim?
because you want to read it like that. Which is pretty typical of you, so it doesn't surprise me. I know you think I'm a terrible person, and it colors how you read my comments.
it clearly is referring to the people blaming the reporting on what Trump is saying and not blaming Trump's words themselves. At this time we don't even know why Trump was shot. It may have been because the shooter thought Trump is a fascist. Or any other reason.
But even without knowing anything, some people are going to start placing blame.
of course it wouldn't have Trump's fingerprints on it. He's not type to have an heir apparent waiting. So the person would of course be picked independently of him.
but why do you think the RNC and its delegates won't pick someone from the Trumpist wing of the party? Especially after his being martyred by an assassin.
more importantly, why would these hypothetical "Dem/Deep state" actors believe if they eliminated Trump the next nominee up wouldn't also embrace the likes of Project 2025 and Agenda 47?
pretty flimsy and frankly risky hopes to hang a conspiracy on, especially for Democrats.
Mr. Ml1, you just don't understand. First, you have to recognize that the John F. Kennedy, Jr. (according to Qanon) was at the rally right behind Trump. No, really, that's true, as posted during the rally but before the shooting -
Trump is finally on stage, an hour late. Behind him is Vince Fusca, the man who QAnon followers believe is actually the late JFK Jr. Follow @acyn for clips from the rally. pic.twitter.com/0ZIxB9jSZx
If Trump had been killed, then the plan was that Johnny will rise gallantly to his feet and lift the nominee's body in his arms, stand in front of the microphones and begin to speak. The speech is short. But it's the most rousing speech you've ever read. It's been worked on, here and in Russia, on and off, for over eight years. They would force someone to take the body away from him and Johnny will really hit those microphones and those cameras with blood all over him, fighting off anyone who tries to help him, defending America even if it means his own death, rallying a nation of television viewers to hysteria.
of course it wouldn't have Trump's fingerprints on it. He's not type to have an heir apparent waiting. So the person would of course be picked independently of him.
but why do you think the RNC and its delegates won't pick someone from the Trumpist wing of the party? Especially after his being martyred by an assassin.
more importantly, why would these hypothetical "Dem/Deep state" actors believe if they eliminated Trump the next nominee up wouldn't also embrace the likes of Project 2025 and Agenda 47?
pretty flimsy and frankly risky hopes to hang a conspiracy on, especially for Democrats.
Mr. Ml1, you just don't understand. First, you have to recognize that the John F. Kennedy, Jr. (according to Qanon) was at the rally right behind Trump. No, really, that's true, as posted during the rally but before the shooting -
If Trump had been killed, then the plan was that Johnny will rise gallantly to his feet and lift the nominee's body in his arms, stand in front of the microphones and begin to speak. The speech is short. But it's the most rousing speech you've ever read. It's been worked on, here and in Russia, on and off, for over eight years. They would force someone to take the body away from him and Johnny will really hit those microphones and those cameras with blood all over him, fighting off anyone who tries to help him, defending America even if it means his own death, rallying a nation of television viewers to hysteria.
Perhaps my reading comprehension needs work, but that sure read like: Why not blame the victim?
because you want to read it like that. Which is pretty typical of you, so it doesn't surprise me. I know you think I'm a terrible person, and it colors how you read my comments.
it clearly is referring to the people blaming the reporting on what Trump is saying and not blaming Trump's words themselves. At this time we don't even know why Trump was shot. It may have been because the shooter thought Trump is a fascist. Or any other reason.
But even without knowing anything, some people are going to start placing blame.
(Judge believes Jack Smith should never have been appointed to this case)
Just to be clear, you are on the record as being opposed to the first 2 amendments in the Bill of Rights.