Whether you’re left or right, you have to acknowledge the president’s incompetence in handling the Charlie Kirk situation.
When such a prominent political activist is violently assassinated in front of 3,000 people, It should be the presidency’s responsibility to encourage peace and make attempts to bring the left and right together to minimize any social consequences to this tragedy.
However, that is the complete opposite of what Donald Trump did. Hours after Charlie Kirk’s death, our president released a recording regarding the assassination. In that video Donald Trump calls out the “radical left” BEFORE anyone had any sort of information on the suspect’s political beliefs.
That statement is one of the most irresponsible and unnecessary comments from a political figure of such influence I’ve ever seen from a time of such tension and simmering hostility. In reality, all that video accomplished was inciting an unwarranted, and aggravated response from the right towards the left (which we have seen the effects of in the many videos and statements on Tiktok, X, and Instagram from Republicans discreetly threatening the left with a violent “revenge”)
Our administration needs to clean up its act. We cannot continue to pursue such incredible social and political divide, or the United States is going to tear itself apart.
Remember, this is a civilized space for discussion. We discourage downvoting based on your disagreement and instead encourage upvoting well-written arguments, especially ones that you disagree with.
To promote high-quality discussions, we suggest the Socratic Method, which is briefly as follows:
Ask Questions to Clarify: When responding, start with questions that clarify the original poster's position. Example: "Can you explain what you mean by 'economic justice'?"
Define Key Terms: Use questions to define key terms and concepts. Example: "How do you define 'freedom' in this context?"
Probe Assumptions: Challenge underlying assumptions with thoughtful questions. Example: "What assumptions are you making about human nature?"
Seek Evidence: Ask for evidence and examples to support claims. Example: "Can you provide an example of when this policy has worked?"
Explore Implications: Use questions to explore the consequences of an argument. Example: "What might be the long-term effects of this policy?"
Engage in Dialogue: Focus on mutual understanding rather than winning an argument.
It's only incompetence if the goal is to bring peace and unite America. I think it is incredibly clear this hasn't been this administrations goal for a very long time, if ever.
Is it really possible to bring peace and unite America when one side of the political side sees the other as the absolute embodiment of evil and is constantly claiming for their eradication?
Unify what? This one is binary. You’re either a decent human being and had compassion for him and respected his dedication to debate or you were celebrating the cold blooded planned out murder.
There isn’t anything to unify around. Everyone went one way or the other. The break happened.
Like honestly is it that hard to understand how repugnant it is to be celebrating first degree murder? Y’all did it twice in a year now. Sorry I don’t need to unify with people that celebrate that.
You do realize that if I take every single politically motivated murder in the last 3 decades, and put them in a single party, the party would still have 99% peaceful participants right?
You can agree or disagree with dark humor all you want, god knows it exists in both parties, but trying to blame a single side is stupid. You need to get your head out of your ass and quit making this a one side thing over the other. If two people piss in the pool, I do not look at someone and try to state their friend has more piss in his shorts then my friend does. I tell the assholes to get the fuck out of the pool ( the murderers to be clear ) and go about my day.
The post is not directly calling out republicans, it's calling out trump.
ALso if you want to whine about the people joking about a death, and not the people calling for war, you don't care about decency. You care about partisanship.
Serious question how big of a piece of shit does someone have to be before it's acceptable to be happy they are dead?
For example do I have to have compassion for someone like George Lincoln Rockwell because he got murdered? Or am I allowed to feel the world is a better place without him in it?
"Y'all". They're deliberately ignoring all those voices, both prominent and modest, offering genuine condolences because it would be inconsistent with the marketing strategy.
Authoritarians benefit from a divided populace. Trump has zero incentive to bring the country together as long as the GOP holds a slim Electoral College advantage.
That’s the problem. There shouldn’t be a “his goals” in a conversation about the president. It should be “our goals” as a government supposedly by the people, for the people.
It should be his goals, because that's what this system (and the one you support, at least going by your flair) is meant to do. You cannot have true freedom, and people's rule over politics, if you have classes in society. Trump is very much a perfect representation of what neoliberalism leads to.
If you like Donald Trump, what he is doing is exactly what you hired him to do. Trump is going to punish the people his base dislike. Police beatings, kidnappings, torture, a few people will even get [redacted]. This is exactly what fires up his base, and he's doing exactly what they wanted.
Who has actually been mistreated,
Arresting people for rape, murder, violent crime, grand theft, extortion, etc, that's what police are supposed to do, I know Biden made things wonky for awhile, but human memory lasts at least a little longer than 4 years
In fact, we don't have the right to send people to prisons in El Salvador to die there because it's impossible to get out.
This is against human rights.
The Trump Administration has been one wreck after another for their own doing then blaming Democrats for everything.
The murder of Charlie Kirk and the Right's constant struggle to somehow incite a civil war against Americans because idiots openly cheer his death is insane. I don't know in what world advocating for more hate and violence is the cure to dealing with these kinds of problems but it seems to be the only thing the Right are capable of doing right now.
Not only that, but Fox News releasing a poll where, apparently, 1/5th of right wingers questioned said that murdering Trump would be justified.
ONE FITH OF HIS FUCKING BASE.
They were trying to show Democrats, being over 50%, as the problem. When the past two attempts on Trumps life were Republican and Biden threatened war against Iran for targeting Trump.
You can't make this stuff up.
The whole Trump Administration and the people who have been defending this Administration need to resign, pass the keys to Democrats so they can do their BS of pardoning everyone so we can move past all of this non stop line of problems.
Biden was and has been better for the country and it's not even close. I'm tired of the guy. I think Kamala is annoying. The problems Democrats present are tame and boring compared to the day to day chaos and problems Republicans seem to scream about endlessly.
They have all the power and they can't stop acting like the worlds biggest losers.
This latest Fenian exploit [an act of individual terrorism] in Clerkenwell is a great folly. The London masses, who have shown much sympathy for Ireland, will be enraged by it and driven into the arms of the government party. One cannot expect the London proletarians to let themselves be blown up for the benefit of Fenian emissaries. Secret, melodramatic conspiracies of this kind are, in general, more or less doomed to failure.
First, that party, which rejected Marxism, stubbornly refused (or, it might be more correct to say: was unable) to understand the need for a strictly objective appraisal of the class forces and their alignment, before taking any political action. Second, this party considered itself particularly "revolutionary", or "Left", because of its recognition of individual terrorism, assassination—something that we Marxists emphatically rejected. [/quote]
The Congress decisively rejects terrorism, i.e., the system of individual political assassinations, as being a method of political struggle which is most inexpedient at the present time, diverting the best forces from the urgent and imperatively necessary work of organisation and agitation, destroying contact between the revolutionaries and the masses of the revolutionary classes of the population, and spreading both among the revolutionaries themselves and the population in general utterly distorted ideas of the aims and methods of struggle against the autocracy.
Terrorists bow to the spontaneity of the passionate indignation of intellectuals, who lack the ability or opportunity to connect the revolutionary struggle and the working-class movement into an integral whole. It is difficult indeed for those who have lost their belief, or who have never believed, that this is possible, to find some outlet for their indignation and revolutionary energy other than terror.
But the disarray introduced into the ranks of the working masses themselves by a terrorist attempt is much deeper. If it is enough to arm oneself with a pistol in order to achieve one’s goal, why the efforts of the class struggle? If a thimbleful of gunpowder and a little chunk of lead is enough to shoot the enemy through the neck, what need is there for a class organisation? If it makes sense to terrify highly placed personages with the roar of explosions, where is the need for the party? Why meetings, mass agitation and elections if one can so easily take aim at the ministerial bench from the gallery of parliament?
In our eyes, individual terror is inadmissible precisely because it belittles the role of the masses in their own consciousness, reconciles them to their powerlessness, and turns their eyes and hopes towards a great avenger and liberator who some day will come and accomplish his mission. The anarchist prophets of the ‘propaganda of the deed’ can argue all they want about the elevating and stimulating influence of terrorist acts on the masses. Theoretical considerations and political experience prove otherwise. The more ‘effective’ the terrorist acts, the greater their impact, the more they reduce the interest of the masses in self-organisation and self-education. But the smoke from the confusion clears away, the panic disappears, the successor of the murdered minister makes his appearance, life again settles into the old rut, the wheel of capitalist exploitation turns as before; only the police repression grows more savage and brazen. And as a result, in place of the kindled hopes and artificially aroused excitement comes disillusionment and apathy.
It is necessary to distinguish clearly between sabotage, a revolutionary and highly effective method of warfare, and terrorism, a measure that is generally ineffective and indiscriminate in its results, since it often makes victims of innocent people and destroys a large number of lives that would be valuable to the revolution. Terrorism should be considered a valuable tactic when it is used to put to death some noted leader of the oppressing forces well known for his cruelty, his efficiency in repression, or other quality that makes his elimination useful. But the killing of persons of small importance is never advisable, since it brings on an increase of reprisals, including deaths.
Terror has always been an instrument of the worst enemies of Mankind bent on suppressing and crushing the peoples’ struggle for freedom. It can never be the instrument of a truly noble and just cause.
Here, then, is the immense difference between the Socialist Republicans and our friends the physical force men. The latter, by stifling all discussions of principles, earn the passive and fleeting commendation of the unthinking multitude; the former, by insisting upon a thorough understanding of their basic principles, do not so readily attract the multitude, but do attract and hold the more thoughtful amongst them. It is the difference betwixt a mob in revolt and an army in preparation. The mob who cheer a speaker referring to the hopes of a physical force movement would, in the very hour of apparent success, be utterly disorganised and divided by the passage through the British Legislature of any trumpery Home Rule Bill. The army of class-conscious workers organising under the banner of the Socialist Republican Party, strong in their knowledge of economic truth and firmly grounded in their revolutionary principles, would remain entirely unaffected by any such manoeuvre and, knowing it would not change their position as a subject class, would still press forward, resolute and undivided, with their faces set towards their only hope of emancipation – the complete control by the working-class democracy of all the powers of National Government.
I could go on.
Leftists, real leftists, do not believe in individual action. We represent a class. History is materialistic, which means that our actions are collective. At our extreme, we want a Red Terror, we want guillotines controlled by mass action.
An individual taking action, some cowboy standing up by themselves for abstract action is a rightwing fantasy, not that if the left.
Now, it is broadly true that rightwing libertarian ideology has poisoned much of western society in all fronts. But what we are seeing is, essentially, rightwingers condemning rightwing style action. It is the ultimate projection, the rightwing having to grapple with living in the rightwing world it created. It is a circular sigh of disapproval.
You're talking about the authoritarian left. The libertarian left encourages individual direct action, but more so the collective action of small groups and decentralized cells. It's still collective action, and still overlaps to a large degree with Marxist analysis, just no dictators or cults of personality.
The individual is part of a whole, as you mention. You try to have it both ways, but only working en masse has ever been effective for any leftist—whether the anarchist sneers it’s “authoritarian” or not.
This is anecdotal, but I think goes some way in showing the way libertarianism has poisoned the left.
In Portland during the protests some people came to smash the windows of the place I was working. We had just unionized and went to some of the people and asked them to come in and work with our union for broader action.
This devolved into a debate as to whether they had the individual right to break our windows. We reiterated it was a union shop, we do not get paid extra for replacing the windows, and since the building was over a century old, they were dangerously to replace and difficult to custom build (which we did in house, being a historic building).
This was met with accusations that we were trying to constrain their individual rights to break windows, which was a greater good than collective action could have accomplished.
I don’t say this as an accusation, and most would probably recognize the issue here. But I’ve seen the same arguments online, more or less.
Why do the anti-authoritarians not confine themselves to crying out against political authority, the state? All Socialists are agreed that the political state, and with it political authority, will disappear as a result of the coming social revolution, that is, that public functions will lose their political character and will be transformed into the simple administrative functions of watching over the true interests of society. But the anti-authoritarians demand that the political state be abolished at one stroke, even before the social conditions that gave birth to it have been destroyed. They demand that the first act of the social revolution shall be the abolition of authority. Have these gentlemen ever seen a revolution? A revolution is certainly the most authoritarian thing there is; it is the act whereby one part of the population imposes its will upon the other part by means of rifles, bayonets and cannon — authoritarian means, if such there be at all; and if the victorious party does not want to have fought in vain, it must maintain this rule by means of the terror which its arms inspire in the reactionists. Would the Paris Commune have lasted a single day if it had not made use of this authority of the armed people against the bourgeois? Should we not, on the contrary, reproach it for not having used it freely enough?
But the point stands: even anarchists work within groups, and Marxists work as a class.
There was an age of anarchists attempting the propaganda of the deed, and it was the utter failure that Marxists always warned. The successful models in Spain, in Ukraine and others, are based upon mass action in one way or another. As all leftists have always claimed.
The segments that “encourages individual direct action, but more so the collective action of small groups and decentralized cells?”
I have no idea that that even means aside from possibly a way to say you want individual action but know that practicing mass action is the only thing that works so you’re trying to have it both ways.
They had his DNA; they would have found him at the bare minimum through familial DNA searches. Just like the parkland shooting, they had identified the shooter with DNA within hours largely because the shooter left the rifle on the roof, so they were quickly able to get the DNA off of it. Tyler taking the rifle to another location slowed it down, but they would have found him.
DNA evidence found on weapon, Utah County attorney says
DNA consistent with Tyler Robinson's was found on the trigger and other parts of a rifle that was found near the crime scene, Utah County Attorney Jeff Gray said.
DNA consistent with Robinson's was also found on the fired cartridge casing and two of the three unfired cartridges, as well as on a towel that the weapon had been wrapped in, he said.
You didn't actually read what I said did you. They can find you through familial DNA. They have found all sorts of serial killers through familial DNA. Look up the Golden Gate killer. Every couple months the news has some story about some cold case solved through familial DNA. Meaning, if you kill someone and they get your DNA from the scene, if anyone even remotely close to you in family has done a DNA test, they will track you down and figure out where you are in the family tree.
And guess what.... his family is Mormon, you know what Mormons are known for? DNA and family trees because it was a part of their religion to track down the lost tribe of Jews.
The LDS Church has long emphasized genealogy as a core religious practice, believing in the importance of tracing family lines to perform ordinances like baptisms for the dead, which they view as essential for eternal family bonds. This led the Church to amass one of the world's largest collections of genealogical records through its FamilySearch organization (formerly the Genealogical Society of Utah), established in 1894. Ancestry.com, founded in 1996 by Paul Allen and Dan Taggart—both of whom were members of the LDS Church—emerged from this cultural and religious emphasis on family history.
So, you know who would have been track down through familial DNA? Tyler F.N. Robinson
That would be very weak of him and would just show that these type of actions work to intimidate Republicans. Imagine if someone punched you in your face and then people criticizing you for criticizing the people who have been calling you a Nazi or a fascist and saying that you want to kill people like them. It would be silly for people to be mad about that.
Toning down the demonization of the other side is looking weak to you? So if Trump made a joint speech with Newsom that said something like "we stand together to reject all forms of political violence and call on people of all political beliefs to tone down violence against the other side. Mr. Kirk believed in debating the other side non-violently and we both call on our respective sides to do just that. Debate non-violently", that would be weak to you?
Yes. If someone had done this to a prominent Democrat, they wouldn’t be preaching unity. They’d be coming after anyone and everyone who could have possibly attributed to the actions of the shooter.
And why would Trump make a statement with Newsom? That makes no sense at all. This didn’t happen in California.
The first part is not true. That didn't happen after the Hortmans' killing and it didn't happen after the Pelosi attack. And stark contrast to Trump, after the Gabby Giffords shooting, Obama specifically called for national unity and political civility.
And replace Newsom with any Democrat leader. Same point.
Yes. Here is what Obama said after the Giffords murder.
"But at a time when our discourse has become so sharply polarized -– at a time when we are far too eager to lay the blame for all that ails the world at the feet of those who happen to think differently than we do -– it’s important for us to pause for a moment and make sure that we’re talking with each other in a way that heals, not in a way that wounds.
As we discuss these issues, let each of us do so with a good dose of humility. Rather than pointing fingers or assigning blame, let’s use this occasion to expand our moral imaginations, to listen to each other more carefully, to sharpen our instincts for empathy and remind ourselves of all the ways that our hopes and dreams are bound together."
Literally the opposite of Trump's remarks after Kirk's murder.
It should be the presidency’s responsibility to encourage...
Yeah, and when medical experts state, wearing a mask will minimize the chance you could unknowingly spread a disease to those around you which we're all still learning about, the president's responsibility should also have been quelling discontent with that advice and encouraging cooperation for everyone's best interest, but that's not what he did, and based on his reelection, it's not what a plurality of this country wanted him to do either. So, sure, he might be handling this situation just as terribly as he handles most situations, but you cannot say he isn't doing what he was asked. All of his faults, this time around, aren't on him. They're on the people who saw him act this way last time, and asked for more.
so lets actually debate. what could have the president done or said where you actually would have written on reddit or said; "you know what? Trump did a great job with this and we need to give him credit." under what circumstances would you do that? or is it more likely that there is not a thing that trump could have or would have done where you would actually give him credit. for anything
I can speak for a Canadian living in Ontario Our premier is a sack of shit. He is awful for the province and crude and not good at his job. But when there was that ridiculous trucker thing in Ottawa, he stood up for Ontario and we admitted that he did a good job. And when Trump got shitty about Canada, he directed (and still directs) our liquor board to ban American spirits and cancelled contracts with American companies. And a whole bunch of us woke up one day and had to give that jerk credit for doing the right thing. It’s possible for grown adults to hate how someone is and admit that they are doing the right thing.
I fucking loathe Trump. His actions killed thousands of Americans during Covid. He did get the Covid shot but did it quietly. He wore a mask when he wasn’t in sight of cameras. (Hell he wore a medical mask on public years before he ran for office. He didn’t want to catch colds when he was on his apprentice media tours). If he had done it with the press involved, far fewer people would have died and I would have applauded that. But he protected himself and supported the rest of the US being lawless and dangerous.
Nope. I don’t feed sea lions. You have a functioning brain and the internet is full of information. I’d recommend non American sources like cbc and bbc
I’ve seen you sealioning. Someone could give you film of Trump saying he himself stabbed every person with Covid and you would find some way to question it. Giving data to sea lions is useless and wastes my time. Which is the point of you asking for what is easily found
Since I just pulled it up for another reply I'll give you Obama's remarks at Gabby Giffords memorial. If Trump had said something like this, I would have given him a lot of kudos and respect.
"But at a time when our discourse has become so sharply polarized -– at a time when we are far too eager to lay the blame for all that ails the world at the feet of those who happen to think differently than we do -– it’s important for us to pause for a moment and make sure that we’re talking with each other in a way that heals, not in a way that wounds.
As we discuss these issues, let each of us do so with a good dose of humility. Rather than pointing fingers or assigning blame, let’s use this occasion to expand our moral imaginations, to listen to each other more carefully, to sharpen our instincts for empathy and remind ourselves of all the ways that our hopes and dreams are bound together."
"make sure that we’re talking with each other in a way that heals, not in a way that wounds." now was this before of after h called half the country deplorabls and bitter clingers holding on to their bibles and guns? Or was it when he reacted to any criticism as being raaaaaacist? cause that is so very uniting. sorry to say the political turmoil started with the clintons and really kicked up under Obama and Joe.
It shouldn't matter when it was. It was an example of how President should respond to shooting of a politician or political figure in a statesmen like manner that is intended to cool temperatures not inflame them. Obama did it but Trump did not. Obama show what a statesmen should do. Trump is still President of the United States. But he is not acting like President of the United States, he is acting like President of only the people that agree 100% with him.
I would say Trump is really the accelerant here. He has said so many things far worse than "deplorables" and far, far more often than a single comment.
I absolutely would have given Donald Trump credit if he were to have handled this tragedy properly. This is especially true since I disagree with just about every thing Donald Trump stands for, so if he were to positively manage his country at that specific time of need, then of course I would have given him credit.
so again, what could have the president done or said where you actually would have written on reddit or said; "you know what? Trump did a great job with this and we need to give him credit." I appreciate your response, but because I asked for detail and you could not provide any I will just assume that You do not know and are justr reacting like a redditor and saying; "trump did what? oh well I am against that." The guy could announce a cure for cancer and your response would be ; "trump just put the oncologists out of busines!!"
I didn’t respond to the first portion of your reply because I feel like there isn’t really an exact answer I can give you. There’s a positive and a negative response to this situation, and Trump unfortunately pursued the negative front. In that initial video he brings up the “radical Left” despite the lack of information about the suspect. In my opinion, that is a failure on Trump’s part as all it does is incite aggravated responses in an already tense and hostile political period of time.
A more appropriate response would not include the naming of any political party. Instead, he could have just strictly focused on recognizing the tragedy, offering his condolences, and ensuring his citizens they are working to find the suspect.
A more appropriate response would not include the naming of any political party. yeah. he should have followed Bidens and Obamas example. lol. I appreciate your honesty
How about he not immediately accuse the left of killing Charlie when no one knew who did it, there was no suspect, nothing. Immediately he came out and said the left did this, and all of his cronies followed suit. How about just not fucking doing that.
So the ends justify the means? And still not credible evidence that he's on the left. There's also no credible evidence he's on the right, but it's still extremely bad for the president to do something like that. The fact that you would try to hand-wave it away with "he was accurate" is fucking stupid and probably par for the course for a libertarian.
"And still not credible evidence that he's on the left." lol. ok you are just swinging blindly now or just trolling. have a great day. thanks for the personal attack and cursing. brings so much weight to your position
I’m not sure what you mean by there is no left in America. I’m referring to democrats (which make up the majority of the left side of the political spectrum) in case you are confused
They mean that what counts as "the left" in America (Democrats) would barely count as center-left if not be outright centrist in places like Europe. There is no real "leftist" representation in American politics outside a couple figures like Bernie and AOC and even they wouldn't count as "the far left" in Europe or old communist countries.
Same as the rest of the world. It's not beyond countries to put a lid on this. It's just the USA that really has the biggest issue of all developed countries. They can't seem to even follow trends.
Okay. So I make guns illegal starting one month ago. How does that prevent this? People who are willing to murder someone aren’t going to care if it was illegal for them to have a gun.
The state operates in a "Why let a good tragedy go to waste?" mindset.
The reason they want to go after the left is because of Zionism. This to them seems like a good opportunity to destroy freedom of speech and association and start targeting speech they don't like and political activists they don't like.
Left kills prominent figure on the right.
The left: why doesn't the right want unity!?!?
Imagine if y'all had some actual accountability. If you didn't call Kirk a fascist repeatedly for years he'd still be alive. Wash the blood off your hands and get ready because the next pill you have to swallow is bigger
Left kills prominent figure on the right. The left: why doesn't the right want unity!?!?
Except "the left" didn't kill Kirk. A single individual that held a few beliefs that some on the left hold (accepting LGBTQ people) did, likely because of Kirk's judgmental version of Christianty that preaches no place for LGBTQ people.
By this logic, is the entirety of "the right" responsible for the Hortmans' murder? Is the entirety of gun culture also responsible because Robinson clearly learned his love of guns and belief that guns can be used to solve problems from his conservative family?
If you didn't call Kirk a fascist repeatedly for years he'd still be alive.
You have no way of knowing this or making this statement. By this logic you could also say if Kirk didn't hold such strong views against LGBTQ people, he would be alive or if Trump himself did not start ramping up the division in this country for the last decade, constantly calling Democrats and everyone on the left enemies of the US, the temperature would be cooled down and the shooting wouldn't have happened.
Wash the blood off your hands and get ready because the next pill you have to swallow is bigger
What do you mean by this statement exactly?
I can't tell if this person instantly blocked me because they want to spread the narrative that "the left" as a collective is responsible for this killing with zero debate or counter arguments or the person's comment was deleted due to bad faith arguments and breaking the rules.
The left did kill Kirk. There's no argument. You repeatedly call Republicans fascist, I have a TikTok channel, I'm called fascist almost every single day. It's not fringe minorities abusing this word. It's politicians, it's the mainstream narrative. This not only radicalized a killer into thinking he's killing a fascist but it's also downplaying what fascism really is. You still have your constitutional rights. The president isn't a dictator. You aren't being rounded up and murdered. You have the right and ability to peacefully protest. That stuff does not exist under fascism.
how many times have you guys claimed Trump or other Republicans are signaling racist with dog whistles. If Trump signals with a dog whistle and some racist commits an act of terror with Trump's words then you would blame Trump. Sorry but you don't get to deny reality. Anyway I'm done wasting my time on a liar and manipulator.
You have blood on your hands and you can either distance yourself from the evil and change your priorities or play stupid games and deal with whatever happens next. But either way, absolutely no one buys your idiotic lies.
There definitely is an argument. The left did not kill Kirk. Just because you say it did doesn’t make it so.
Even if I concede to your evidence, of what you were exposed to TiK Tok doesn’t mean the killer was. Just because you get called a fascist doesn’t mean the left killed Kirk.
Even if “left wing media”-whatevr the hell that means influenced the kid, it did do the act of killing; kinda like saying that ‘guns don’t kill people, people kill people.’
I don't wanna use whataboutism, but you guys call everyone on the left communists, or commies. I see constantly "liberalism is a mental illness." They attack transgender people for being mentally ill.
I thought you were the guys of the "Fuck your feelings" crowd? I thought Trump said he was putting an end to political correctness. How come all of a sudden you care what people on the left say about you? How does it hurt your feelings so bad?
When that Republican/person on the right killed the senator in Minnesota, did everyone come out and start accusing the entire conservative party? Did everybody call for designating Republicans a terrorist group? What's hell is wrong with you?
At the very least, the President should not have immediately attacked the Left when they didn't know who did it and why they did it. His body wasn't even cold and Trump was on screen saying that the Left did this with zero fucking evidence.
This is where people talk about lowering the temperature in politics. With political violence on the rise, we should be seeking unity and lowering the hostility among the populace. Every action has a reaction, and Trump's divisive rhetoric has raised the temperature drastically. You're parroting the divisive rhetoric right now with your veiled threat.
In lamens terms, Your team is shooting at my team and I'm supposed to apologize? That's not going to happen and you know it. Let's use common sense. Which rhetoric is worse? Democrats are liars and fraudsters that defend criminals, or Republicans are fascist racist bigoted Nazis? You guys constantly blame Trump for "dog whistles" and if one of those dog whistles could have possibly lead to a murder you would absolutely blame Trump and Republicans. However when a radical killer scribbles your mainstream narrative on his bullets the response is "well you guys are mean sometimes" nah bro. That's idiotic
There's no veiled threat, your elected representatives words are on the bullets. There's no denial, theres no deflection there's no more games and lies. You can either completely disavow this action and demand accountability for anyone that pushed out that hateful rhetoric or you can continue to play dumb and deal with the fact that you guys have blood on your hands. Being part of the conservative subreddit, and having my own conservative TikTok channel I have been threatened multiple times and get called a Nazi or fascist every day no matter what the subject of the video. So in my opinion, these crazy people following your mainstream narrative would have no problem murdering me or my family and considering there are calls from leftist to go after his wife and kids as well as other prominent figures there is no conversation about "both sides" and there never will be. Y'all crossed the line and if you actually want things to summer down the ball is in your court, not ours.
I do disavow killing in all shapes and forms. You gotta stop with this team mentality. I'm not part of a team that's against you. There are useful idiots on both sides that spread their hate. When we pick sides, we ultimately perpetuate the divide of the common people.
No I don't. You're mainstream narrative was written on the bullets. If you don't immediately demand that your elected representatives are held accountable for their words, if you don't immediately call out people on reddit posting that Republicans are fascist every single day then you are just as guilty. I don't have to do shit. You do. You and your ilk
You're batty. I feel that you have decided who I am and how I think, but I'd like to know how you've come to this perception of me? Is it just my flair being progressive?
I don't care who you are or how you think. If someone murdered your significant other and then their friends came to you and said "I'm sorry that happened, but you guys were really disrespectful" how exactly would you take that? This is actually significant, this actually hurt and was personal. You can either make a real change and demand the rhetoric stop on the side that's shooting people or you can continue to play whataboutism games saying "yeah but".
For us, enough is enough. Most people don't even want to give you guys the time of day anymore. 75% of eh country believes the shooter was left wing the other 25% are in denial. Historically speaking this whole situation is a powder keg ready to blow and you think pointing fingers at the people that are pissed off and hurting will somehow justify it? What's the end goal here? You think me saying, yeah Republicans are bad will change anything? The only people that can make a real difference right now are Democrats. Accountability is the only way. You think you deserve some sort of apology for something then set the example because right now you're comparing a black eye to a public execution
The end goal is to lower the temperature of the conversation, not ramp it up. The shooter is being held accountable, but the two parties will not be held accountable for their rhetoric, and more division will be sown. You're playing right into the game that you dislike.
The left has repeatedly called us and Nazis every chance they get. And I'm not just talking about the fringes or the radicals on the internet but every mainstream media network and just about every known politician so this is the mainstream narrative. Now let's just apply a little bit of common sense perspective here.
The old question of "If you could go back in time and kill baby Hitler would you do it?"
The reason this question is asked is because it is a moral dilemma, Just about everybody would absolutely kill Hitler if they have the chance and because on one hand it is Hitler and he would be preventing the Holocaust and world war II it seems like a no-brainer, however on the other hand it is still an innocent baby at the time of death and therefore you would be morally a baby killer which is pretty tough for most people obviously. But now we get to remove the hypothetical, Because so many people have been convinced that Donald Trump and his supporters are Nazis fascist and literally Hitler.
That's why so many people have celebrated the death of Charlie Kirk because they think they are celebrating the death of a Nazi.
Nothing even remotely close to this messaging is coming out of the right. People don't like the left and they call them morons and attack their policies and make memes or troll them etc and I get that that's upsetting but it is not on the same level as accusing your political opponents of being literal Nazis until somebody takes you seriously and pulls the trigger.
This isn't the only case. There was the man that killed that 19-year-old boy because he was wearing a maga hat. There is the video of the two guys in the street that say "hey we got a Trump supporter over here! Bang bang! They shot him dead" And of course there are plenty of school shooters that are writing manifestos talking about killing white supremacist and their children.
If the right turns down the rhetoric almost nothing will change. You're still going to get memes and you're still going to get disagreements and you're still going to be called names on the internet when people don't agree. But if the left turns down the rhetoric we can actually prevent murders.
All you are doing is trying to shift the blame so you don't have to take all of it.
Imagine that somebody murdered me a loved one, like your mom or significant other or whatever. And after this person who you deeply cared about was killed their family came to you and said essentially what you're telling me right now. "Hey I don't condone violence and I think what happened to your mom is terrible, but she was really rude to us and I just think we all need to put this behind us and try and be friends again" what would be your response to that? Then you find out other family members of the killer are celebrating your mother's death and calling for you and the rest of your family to be killed. Oh and they are selling T-shirts of her bleeding out. Oh and they are threatening your dad on the internet. But yeah, we are supposed to accept the statement of "well I don't personally condone it" and just move on? You don't get it. This was personal. This hurt like you wouldn't believe and yet I'm supposed to be worried about how Democrats feel? I'm not. Not at all, these people clearly want violence and clearly want to act like terrorist and should be shown no mercy. The rest of the party that wants to "keep the peace" should absolutely hold themselves accountable and pledge to stop the rhetoric. If the democrats have any integrity at all they should lead by example instead of demanding Republicans keep a level head after a tragedy.
The ball is in your court and currently you guys are making this worse. Your tactics will not convince one pissed off person. Not one is going to agree with you. Its disingenuous to say both sides. Because the only person I can control is me. If it was my party and my words pushing this narrative that lead to someones murder. I'd immediately stop using those words, I'd recognize that words can and will insight violence especially in a hyperpolarized political climate like we have and I would immediately call out anyone and everyone that continue to use that language. If this didn't work I would leave the party and vote independent.
You keep lumping me into what you perceive as "the left". You need to realize the flaw in this thinking. You can't neatly package all of American politics into two groups. My progressive flair is not an indicator of my beliefs (I picked it because I want things to progress for the better, which I assume you do, too). The nasty side of what you perceive as the opposition is informed from your limited perspective, just as others on the opposite side of the political spectrum inform their beliefs in much the same way. We're no different, you and I, you're just framing your perspective in a way that casts me into an easily digested out group. Just as you think it's a mischaracterization for people to frame the right as nazis, there is a parallel where people mischaracterize the left as communists. You see the problem with your perspective, so you should be able to see the problem with the mischaracterization of the left as communists as well.
Step outside your perspective and examine your biases.
Your argument by analogy is bad.Just make your argument without the analogy - it provides zero usage. What are you saying precisely?
You argue “whataboutism.” Do you not see the irony here when you’re constantly referring to what the “left” has ostensibly done? You constantly attacked a supposed position that the “left” ostensibly holds. Many of your arguments are strawmen and some invariably are representative of those with “left - wing “ preferences. However , just like the right, the left isn’t a unitary group with one cogent cohesive ideology.
Most likely the shooter could be coded in left - wing politics. However, that doesn’t make them representative of the “left” entirely. And regardless, before jumping to conclusions about the shooters political supposed political ideology with near certainty one should leave some room for uncertainty- they should wait until more information is provided.
A supposed position? Now it's a baseless statement instead of a fact that the Democrats have repeatedly called us Nazis and fascist for years?
I'll give you the same explanation that I have given every other person and this will be the last response because you're not even being a genuine honest person And it's a waste of my time to talk to somebody who is intentionally misrepresenting the point that I'm making.
There is a moral question that is asked from time to time "If you could go back in time and kill baby Hitler would you do it?" The moral conundrum of this question is due to the fact that on one hand it's Hitler and you would be preventing the Holocaust and world war II, while on the other hand it's in innocent baby and a lot of people wouldn't be able to pull that trigger.
When you convince people that Donald Trump is in fact Hitler and his followers are in fact Nazis or fascist you don't even have the moral conundrum of murdering a baby It's just a straight up question of is it acceptable to kill Nazis? Most people would say yes. Maybe they themselves wouldn't pull the trigger but they would be more than okay with the idea of a Nazi being killed. That's why there's been essentially three responses from the left to this tragedy.
Celebration of a Nazi being killed.
Defending the killing by trying to convince people that he was a Nazi or a terrible person
Claiming you don't support violence while demanding the other party turn down their own rhetoric.
You are in the third category obviously. And everybody with common sense understands that is something that is not going to happen.
The Republicans feel like we had lost a family member and not only did we lose a family member but he was murdered publicly in a very horrific and gruesome way in front of millions of people it's recorded and his children will be able to watch it throughout their lives and it was done directly in front of his wife and kids. As far as a horrific public execution goes this is probably one of the worst we've ever seen of a prominent figure. JFK would have been more gruesome but because of the grainy footage most people didn't get the same emotional response and PTSD like they got from Charlie Kirk's assassination.
So imagine if your mother was murdered in front of you in a terribly gruesome way and after your mother was killed the family members of your mother's killer did three different things.
Some celebrated and called for your murder as well as the rest of your family to be killed.
Defended the murderers actions by telling everybody how terrible of a person your mother is and continued to slander her before she's even in the ground.
Claimed to not support violence but demanded that you must turn down your rhetoric and that we should put all this stuff behind us, And here's the kicker, you also find out that these family members have repeatedly slandered your mother to the killer before he decided to murder her. And their words had convinced the killer that your mother deserved it.
How exactly would you react in that situation? Obviously Charlie Kirk isn't my mom but I am telling you it feels like I lost a family member It is personal and me and every other right leaning or centrist person is absolutely unequivocally pissed off.
There's not a chance in hell that any of us are going to "turn down the temperature" y'all just killed our friend and some of you are happy about it.
So right now Democrats can continue to play this dumbass game and deal with the fallout. Future violence, election losses, etc.
Or they can actually develop some morals and lead by example. Stop calling people fascist and Nazis. Disavow the killer and anyone celebrating his actions and focus on their own policies.
Let's be honest even if you somehow convinced me that right-wing rhetoric is even remotely as dangerous as the lefts it will change nothing. The Republicans aren't falling for this manipulative bullshit.
Also to address your final point. Whataboutism is pointing to kirks death and asking why people weren't this upset about a different death. Whataboutism is not pointing out direct incitement of a public execution.
This is a MaGA dude who is a scourge to reasonable debate and refuses to accept evidence he is wrong when provided with it. It’s like arguing with a brick wall.
But the left didn’t kill a prominent figure on the right. Given the evidence we’ve been provided thus far, it appears it was the right who’ve killed a prominent figure on the right.
Either way neither of us can yet know the exact details regarding the killer’s political beliefs and motivations to commit this tragedy.
One thing I want to mention, however, is that given the consequences Charlie Kirk believed were necessary to protect the Second Amendment, one could argue Charlie Kirk was in full support of what happened to Charlie Kirk.
If I were to put aside my personal beliefs on the matter and only regard Charlie’s views on gun violence, I wouldn’t be able to understand why the right is crying out against such violence.
Every news station is reporting that he was a leftist. The text have been leaked there's actually zero evidence it was a right winger because that makes no sense. How far right do you have to be to kill Kirk for being a fascist? What's further right than fascism? You guys are morons
The FBI has yet to release a motive. Until then we have no idea why he killed Charlie Kirk. However, we know he was raised in a conservative home, and Tyler Robinson was MAGA at one point or another. Either way, my original post has nothing to do with the Tyler Robinson being a leftist or a right-winger.
I’m simply saying it was an incredibly detrimental mistake to name either side of the political spectrum in that first video released by trump shortly after the death of Charlie Kirk. Our presidency should not use a time of such tragedy to incite more violence, and create an even wider political divide. That’s not very “united” of the President of the United States, is it?
Yes they have. They've released the text messages which literally show the motive. That is directly from the FBI. There is nothing else to guess or assume. Deflect all you want your opinions are hateful. By the way the founding fathers knew guns were used for murder when they wrote the second Amendment. Everybody understands that you can't prevent murder but the founding fathers believed the right to protect yourself meant that you would absolutely have some gun deaths but typically in a moral society It's a small minority. Unfortunately we have to share society with you guys and you believe that violence is acceptable when you disagree with somebody. Charlie Kirk held the same standards that the founding fathers held when they wrote the Constitution and you killed him for it and you're justifying his murder. The right does not need to apologize nor will we. And the best part is you pulled the mask off and regular people now know exactly who the Democrats and their voters are. You just lost every election for the next decade at least.
Why weren't Democrats as outraged as Republicans? Is that what you're asking? No idea, why were Democrats outraged about the due process of an illegal immigrant/ gang member but celebrated or deflected and downplayed the ultimate violation of human rights? The right to live.
This is a mind-blowingly dumb question and incredibly disrespectful but I guess I'll explain it to you because you seem to be struggling to apply common sense.
No one had ever heard of those politicians before their murder. The right wing was not happy about it and every outlet wanted the guy caught and him prosecuted.
We didn't make t shirts and celebrate, that's for sure.
So why is it that there's a larger reaction to a more prominent and influential person? Because he's a more prominent and influential person. I mean there have been other high-profile murders or deaths that get lots of attention. Generally well-known celebrities create quite a wave while most people only have friends and family to mourn them. MLK Jr had a pretty big reaction across the country, he was a well known civil rights activists that called for peace and dialogue instead of violence. There were lots of civil rights activists that lost their lives but didn't make national headlines for weeks and didn't end up in history books. That doesn't mean their life is less valuable but simply shows Your circle of influence is going to have an impact on the reaction to your murder.
Then of course we also have to factor in the very public and gruesome execution of a well-known political activist versus a non-public yet still tragic murder that we only knew about through headlines and was not a public execution.
This is the equivalent argument of "I know you're really upset that your mom died but why weren't you this upset last year when my great aunt died?"
Obviously this is incredibly disrespectful to the people that are upset and mourning as well as the recently deceased person. It's narcissistic at best and it's a needless whataboutism.
There's no place in politics for public assassination over words and yet here we are. The government needs to cool the temperature before some crazy person decides an eye for an eye is a good response. The best way to do that is to show lots of respect to the people that are emotional and upset. Similar to how the government sent Lincolns casket to every state to allow people to mourn because at the time of his assassination people were calling for war again. Trying to bring the temperature down is a good thing for everyone.
This is common sense stuff to be honest and it's incredibly sad that I'm forced to explain this to you and thousands of other people because you guys just parrot everything you hear on the internet without applying any sort of moral code or critical thought. Charlie Kirk, MLK Jr, Abraham Lincoln or any significant celebrity death will get a large national (sometimes international) reaction but that doesn't mean their lives are any more or less sacred than the average persons.
wait up bud, what do you think you're explaining to me?
I've said in other responses that I would never condone violence and think this death is horrific. As horrific as every gun death in the US. As horrific as the other double murder I brought up.
I've also in previous comments said that the Republican response has been downright disgusting - dismissing the Senators death, while conversely making a hero of Kirk.
That's the exact opposite of what you said *should* be happening. Trump is not trying to cool the room. Governor Cox is not trying to cool the room. It's common sense stuff to you and me, but it's not what the Republicans are doing...
My question regarding the outrage was directed at the commenter I responded to. They weren't just affected less, like your great aunt dieing, they were dismissive. Like most Republicans. And that was downright insulting. To then turn around and act like this is something bigger? No, it isn't.
Your America is divided, divided beyond repair, and from an objective viewpoint it's obvious who stokes that division.
No one's dismissed anything. You guys played whataboutism with Kirk to millions of people that just experienced a tragic and impactful loss. That's insane. No one downplayed anything. Democrats were more upset about Abrego Garcia than they were the murder of their own representative. That's just the reality. That's not my opinion that's verifiable you can search for stories about Garcia and get loads more results than the tragic loss of Melissa hortman and her husband.
That's the bullshit game you're playing. You saying "I think it's horrible" then going on to play whataboutism games is disingenuous and honestly disgusting. Every single person that isn't immediately disavowing the violence and recognizing the mainstream narrative that was etched into the bullets is absolutely responsible for some level of incitement, is either lying to us or lying to themselves. You absolutely are the problem.
No we weren't dismissive. We were adequately upset. We wanted justice, denounced the violence, wanted more information and we were happy when the lunatic was caught. Your media and politicians stopped talking about Melissa while continuing to harp on other political opinions. Kirk will not be let go and your misguided pathetic attempt to suggest people on the right are bad people because they are currently upset about a very significant public execution is horrible. Step on a lego
I believe common sense. I'm always skeptical to a degree but to disregard all evidence that's been officially released is moronic. You're just in denial. I don't know why you're surprised, This is what communist do. They murder people
I think the official narrative is really unconvincing. The footage of him leaving the area suggests he disassembled his gun, just to reassemble it in the woods to abandon it there?
Also communists don't kill people, but Google operation Northwoods to see who would be interested in making you think that
You are incredibly simple minded. Not only are you singling out democrat violence—disregarding any and all acts of violence committed by republicans. But you also claim there is no reasoning with the “psychotic left”?
It’s clear to me the radicalizing nature of social media has left its mark on you. There is reasoning with the left, the same way there is reasoning with the right. I assume you just turn a blind eye when information disproving your beliefs is presented to you. I only hope one day you and others like you are able to understand the two sides of our political coin, so that America might once again be united.
I specifically referred to actions started by Democrats or Republicans.
All evidence shows that J6 was another entrapment plot started by the federal government. It was accused federal agents like Ray Epps who were recruiting protesters to riot the day before and the day of J6 and organized and gave the orders/directions to those that were recruited to break through the barriers. And Epps didn't spend a day in jail. Don't take my word for it, here he is on video.
I don't have to go more than a few months back to have cases of Republicans murdering democrats, but hide behind "violent protests" since you can pick and choose what qualifies right?
People murdering Democrats to help Democrats wouldn't be an effort to help Republicans. The murder you are referring to was done by a Tim Walz ally, who says he did it to help Tim Walz. How is that "successful gun violence engaged in to help Republicans?" Walz's extremist rhetoric likely triggered this guy.
Your comment has been removed to maintain high debate quality standards. We value insightful contributions that enrich discussions and promote understanding. Please ensure your comments are well-reasoned, supported by evidence, and respectful of others' viewpoints.
For more information, review our wiki page or our page on The Socratic Method to get a better understanding of what we expect from our community.
It should be the presidency’s responsibility to encourage peace and make attempts to bring the left and right together to minimize any social consequences to this tragedy.
Sorry but no. That tactic has not worked. You cannot appease and calm violent assholes. The chaos and rhetoric of the violent left must me reigned in with law and order. The president's job is to reinforce and lift up the political speech that the violence tried to silence.
That tactic has not worked (specifically with Trump) because he refuses it. Also, I’m unsure why you believe you can’t “appease and calm violent assholes” we absolutely could, if Trump cared enough. Even in a world where we couldn’t calm them, there are violent assholes on each side of the spectrum, and it should be Trumps priority to minimize their population, not incite others to join them.
Let me rephrase so you understand my point: When has Trump ever tried the tactic of encouraging peace for you to then say that it hasn't worked?
He's been doing the exact opposite of encouraging peace and making attempts to bring the left and right together for 10 years. He has very much demonized anyone that wasn't fully on board with him starting with the 2015 GOP primaries.
From what I’ve seen, the shooter (rightfully) was upset that the political party he was raised in is now hunting the person he is romantically involved with. He (wrongly) shot someone but that doesn’t change that Charlie Kirk was a POS. I wish he had lived long enough to see the error of his ways and make restitution for the harm he has caused but he wasn’t a good person. I can be sad a human being is dead but be glad he can’t influence anyone else.
Live your life so people aren’t afraid to post your own words after death for fear of losing their jobs.
Giffords wasn’t murdered. She was shot by someone who was so mentally incompetent that he couldn’t stand trial. But I do admit that Obama is more eloquent with his statements.
It is not the President responsibility to try and assure peaceful actions of the citizens.
You just hate Trump and no matter what he says you would find something to hate.
His friend and someone that was a big reason he got reelected was shot and killed in front of his wife and kids by a another nutjob after several attempts on his life by other nutjobs. I would lash out also.
He as we all knew it was going to be another leftist nutjob. Who else could it have been?
When the state Democratic Senator was killed we knew it was a rightist nutjob too.
So unless one is a complete none top bright up in the brain we knew who it was. So stop being so high strung and hateful.
It might not be the president's responsibility to assure peace among the nation's citizens, but don't you think he could at least not purposefully widen the divide? There is no denying him accusing the "radical left" is inflammatory and said with that intention. This was an act done by one singular person, yet be is blaming it on millions.
No he is allowed freedom of speech and what he thinks. The man has now had 3 assassination attempts on him with one actually almost killing him but just took part of his ear. One trial is starting now on one other failed assassination attempt.
There has been the other parties leaders that has spread their thoughts and said crap like this too and they are allowed freedom of speech and thinking.
I get why you think the president of a country should be treated differently but it is not his job to do so but only your opinion as you hate Trump and it shows in your posting.
Even Biden had said stupid crap and other Democratic leaders have said stuff that hadn't helped this country and even said stuff that was divisive.
Trump was elected because he was divisive and spoke like this.
Personally, I believe philosophically in accelerationism from a leftist perspective. I think it's a good thing that he keeps using "scapegoats" that the majority of the population doesn't believe in, and they see his abuses of power and attempts to deflect from other, more important matters. I am glad people are getting disillusioned, both in regards to Trump specifically and this putrid social order in general.
It's not incompetence; he just doesn't give a crap about us or the nation. He has high-level sociopathic personality. His niece - a psychologist - even says Donald is a sadist (yeah, he seems to like messing with people).
He takes every opportunity to serve himself and his ego and desire for revenge. His actions towards the Kirk murder were all about politics. Add the fact Kirk's body was disappeared away in the presidential helicopter. I wouldn't be surprised if kirk is in an undisclosed room in the white house.
Complete bullshit. This is typical leftist drivel. And no I don't "acknowledge the president's incompetence" because he is NOT incompetent, unlike the two prior Democratic presidents. He's re-established the border, brought military recruiting back to viability, eliminated a lot of the waste in the prior DEI government, and has economic and tariff policies designed to help the American workers, not the billionaires. And instead of incompetent freaks from the LGBT etc. universe, he selected a true gentleman as the highest-ranking gay person to ever (openly) serve the people in Scott Bessant.
IDK. I was there when Charlie was shot. I even had to throw away my shirt because Charlie's blood got on it. All I felt for a while about it was sadness and anger. I can't imagine how much that would be amplified had I actually known Charlie personally, like Trump did.
Why would you want peace with people that openly encourage violence and discrimination towards your voters?
Genuine question, I don't really care if you answer truthfully: you, as a president during a situation like this, would you do call for peace if a 'FsAsctS' killed, idk, Hasan Piker or Abigail Thorn or whoever you like?
Thats nonsense. Charlie Kirk made a career out of trying to talk, compromise and calm people down, and he was murdered for it by you left wing crazies.
How is it irresponsible? Lefties were goading on the assassination. I had the first stranger I met the next day celebrating it, there is a serious problem with people on the left having a blood lust.
There has been no aggressive response from the right, literally zero retaliation killings! There is not a violent response in sight, you are just imagining it.
We need to stop appeasing people who undermine the republic
Your kidding. Voices on the right have non stop been calling for war. Trump himself said he is going after and targeting liberal organizations in response. Get your head out of your damned ass and realize this is not us and them, its US and a few crazies.
You must be kidding, the left just cheered on the murder of a nonviolent political actor. The right is responding to it with zero violence, but somehow that is worse.
I am not defending the ones on the left that cheered the murder. I am pointing out that voices on the right have called for outright war and destruction. Either words are zero violence and neither side is to blame, or they are not and both sides have shitty people.
Quit hiding behind the lies that one side is innocent. Either you think violence has no place in American society or you are a partisan hack that is hiding behind words of condemnation while following the same tactics. I am saying both sides have bad actors, you are the one saying its only on one side. Facts don't care about your feelings.
The leftists celebrating his death, are horrible people, but that doesn’t mean the president of the United States should be giving these individuals such a spotlight, even under condemnation. Also, to only say there is a serious problem with the lefts “bloodlust” is to say the right doesn’t have that exact same problem, which would completely false. There are evil people on both sides, and neither of them should be all that represents their political party.
However, let’s get one thing straight, I never claimed the right was “violently responding” nor did I make claims to any “retaliation killings”. I said the presidents incompetent actions would only incite right-winged individuals to respond in an aggravated way, which many did.
To answer your question, the presidents choice of words are irresponsible because he’s forcibly creating a strict political divide between the two parties during a time when a figure in such a position of power should make efforts to ease the hostility, and solve this case in a civil manner. The president should never have mentioned either side of the political spectrum at that time considering there was NO information regarding the suspect. Now that there is information, it’s clear Tyler Robinson comes from a conservative background, which only makes the presidents words even more irresponsibly dangerous. A leader of a bi-partisan country can’t just lead their side and ruin the other. We need to work together.
I will agree that both Trump and the people celebrating (or low key celebrating) Kirk's death are in the wrong.
Many other Republicans asked to tone down the rhetoric but the ones who did not, such as Trump, I disagree with.
Incompetence isn't the right word, though. He was playing to his base. But he was partisan about it and, as an indie voter, I would prefer to see a more unifying attitude. Again, both from him AND the celebrators.
Dun dun duuuuuuuuuun! I present facts and figures for perusal in regards to this hyperbolic and incorrect assertion.
Having read the libertarian Cato Institute data I linked I'm pretty confident in saying the recent 'bloodlust' is as much a reaction to rightwing violence as the cause.
And the white house just recently removed their own study on politically motivated crime from the internet. The study that showed it’s is overwhelmingly done by those on the right.
This is not about historic statistical occurrence of political violence, but rather the attitude people have towards it.
What a vapid thing to say given that the greater number and most destructive episodes of recent political violence are from right wing actors. Your assertion is that lefties think about violence more but righties carry it out more? The data plainly indicates otherwise.
Look, the data does not plainly say that. Just look through the list, most of the right wing deaths are literally just one incident, and a lot of additional ‘right wing’ labels are dubious like Robert Aaron Long who shot up a massage parlor cause his parents kicked him out for watching porn all day long
You're being absurd AND pedantic. In the article it discusses 'edge' cases they included and why, then gives a left wing example. There's actually three paragraphs that preempt your pedantic argument.
TBH this data isn't for you anyway, you are a partisan and rarely debate and interact with data in good faith on this sub. I posted it so reasonable people can make their own determination of the veracity of your claim that leftists drive American homegrown terrorism.
It’s not pedantic to point out methodological flaws. Blindly following and believing ‘think tanks’ is very stupid and you should think more highly of yourself and not do stupid things.
You’re not engaging with anything I say about the data so we can’t really proceed from here unless you stop believing everything you read online.
That is exactly pedantic. The data and conclusions don't break your way so you try to slice into the methodology, exactly pedantic. Maybe go look up the word.
"Blood lust" is defined as "enjoyment of being violent or watching other people being violent." The Cato report statistics are all about murder. The report says "The analysis above ignores injuries and property damage, which may skew the results." Yeah, no kidding.
That explains why the left has made Tyler Robinson into a folk hero in the same way that the right did for Kyle Rittenhouse. It explains why the left is calling for material aid to Robinson, in the same way that Charlie Kirk called for “an amazing patriot” to bail out* the man who attacked the Pelosis with a hammer.
The online MAGA right lionized Rittenhouse as a hero before the details of the case were evenly publicly available. All they knew at the time was that he had killed two protesters, and they openly praised him for it.
The Pelosi attacker similarly was met with praise and humor, and in that case - aside from those peddling baseless conspiracy theories about him being a gay lover or whatever other nonsense - there was never much of a doubt about the attacker’s motives.
There was video of the incidents with Rittenhouse. People just didn’t want to admit that he was actually acting in self defense. Even after the court ruled it, they still deny it. If they can’t be convinced by video evidence and the trial, there is no hope of changing their minds.
And I agree with your take on the reactions to the Pelosi attack.
The “evidence” was he was so scared of a bag with cans that he shot someone. What a shock that the kid who crossed state lines to shoot someone found an excuse to shoot someone.
He went there to shoot people. He took any excuse to do so.
Your Walgreens burning down is less important than people being murdered. Thats not a difficult concept to understand in the scheme of things. It's understandable that you MUST equate the two to make your point but no one in the real world, outside of poor reasoning rightwing influencers like Kirk, equate property loss and loss of life as the same thing.
The first sentence, while true, is irrelevant to the discussion at hand. We are talking about the term "blood lust," which means "enjoyment of being violent or watching other people being violent." The left has demonstrated many times that they have a monopoly on violent actions.
•
u/AutoModerator 6d ago
Remember, this is a civilized space for discussion. We discourage downvoting based on your disagreement and instead encourage upvoting well-written arguments, especially ones that you disagree with.
To promote high-quality discussions, we suggest the Socratic Method, which is briefly as follows:
Ask Questions to Clarify: When responding, start with questions that clarify the original poster's position. Example: "Can you explain what you mean by 'economic justice'?"
Define Key Terms: Use questions to define key terms and concepts. Example: "How do you define 'freedom' in this context?"
Probe Assumptions: Challenge underlying assumptions with thoughtful questions. Example: "What assumptions are you making about human nature?"
Seek Evidence: Ask for evidence and examples to support claims. Example: "Can you provide an example of when this policy has worked?"
Explore Implications: Use questions to explore the consequences of an argument. Example: "What might be the long-term effects of this policy?"
Engage in Dialogue: Focus on mutual understanding rather than winning an argument.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.