Hmmm disagree. If someone's politics are violence, and they have a serious path to enacting them, it's self defense. Self defense is generally acceptable.
I don't want to politely walk into a concentration camp because a bunch of people in states I don't even live in voted to exterminate the queers and their friends.
Also anyone who's going to say "Gay marriage is violence against society" is an asshole and wrong. Anyone who says abortion is murder but isn't doing jack fuck to help living humans is not worth listening to. Just to preempt the "well they think the same about you!" nonsense.
Here's the thing: Trump's politics do not stop with Trump. Killing him does not kill the fascistic movement he's contributed greatly to, it has a life of it's own, and even had he died today, whoever replaces him would still be peddling the same kinds of things, except they'd now have a martyr to rally Trump's old fanbase around, one that, by virtue of being killed, many people are going to feel reluctant to criticize. As such, I feel that this attack, assuming it was politically motivated (and I figure the odds that someone shoots at Trump for reasons unrelated to his political agenda are quite slim, so it's probably a safe assumption) was a mistake- I fear that it will have helped Trump's agenda more than hurt it, and would have done so even if it was successful in killing him.
Now, Im not saying this to be one of those "violence is never the answer" types, I do recognize that there are situations where the only hope one has to survive an openly hostile political force is overwhelming violence; but it must be recognized that such an effort is extremely risky, it has significant drawbacks even if successful (such as setting a precedent legitimizing political violence, which anyone else may use, or causing collateral damage), and carries a significant risk that when the shooting stops, you'll be on the losing end. As such, it really should be a last resort, and seeing as Trump isn't even president yet, hasn't even been voted in, and doesn't yet have a legislature stacked up to ensure he can actually carry out his agenda, we're not yet at the point where it is the only option left to stop him. Employing it now makes it more likely that we reach that point.
Trump is enough of a cult of personality that I think if he died (either through violence or natural causes), it would limit the effectiveness of the right wing. You are correct that it wouldn't stop the problem. Project2025 wasn't written by just him. There's whole buildings full of assholes.
You may also be correct that this will motivate his fans, and that's a net negative.
Also, I think the genie's out of the bottle on political violence. There was already a coup attempt. If trump loses, I would be extremely surprised if there wasn't violence. If he wins, people will suffer and die through policy. We're not in a good spot.
Unfortunately, I cannot thanos snap away the far right.
The primary problem with this attempt was Trump lived.
Republican policies are unacceptable. If someone rounded up all the republicans and shot them dead, I wouldn't be terribly upset. They are bad people doing bad things of their own free will. We could do so much more about climate change, for example, if we weren't being dragged down by conservatives.
I'd rather we have non violent paths forward, but I'll take what I can get.
You're probably the type of person who would end up being a shooter if this is your mentality.
This is political violence. Going around trying to assassinate people you don't like is not self defense. Your presumption of violence is NOT a justification of using violence. Two wrongs don't make a right, you're still in the wrong. This mentality that violence is a just mean to achieve political goals is quite literally what terrorism is. This is the exact line of logic that Hamas used to justify the Oct 7th attack against civilians or what the Turks used to justify the Armenian genocide or what Hitler used to justify the Holocaust. You have to be some type of soulless ghoul to think this type of behavior is acceptable in a civil society. The majority of Americans already don't support what Trump spews from liberals to independents to the apolitical to even some conservatives. If you criticize Trump and MAGA of being pro violence then you have to stick by your principles and be anti violence.
Bernie's response is without a doubt the correct one. Not only is condemning the violence morally correct, but it shows that he stand by his principles and his condemnation helps remove fuel from the fire by not encouraging more violence. Bernie is right, be like Bernie.
Do people think that forcing children to give birth isn’t violence? That having the bank seize your house isn’t violence?
Imagine the privileged delusion that you’re above all that — that you’ve transcended the zombie horde of apocalyptic subhumanity clutching at your ankles, literally trying to rob your children, to poison them, to end all life on earth. The treacherous religious maniacs, the ignoramuses, the money-hungry, fashion-obsessed, sports-car-maniacal narcissists who would eat a puppy alive for a Rolex. That these orc-like creatures aren’t here to torment and torture and pillage.
But sure. Let’s not stoop to their level by struggling too much as they eat us alive.
So trump's fanbase using violence is completely fine then? It isn't a "presumption of violence." Maybe you haven't followed a single piece of history of the past 4 years.
Breaking into Nancy pelosi's house in an assassination attempt, physically forcing raped girls and women to risk their lives to bear a rapists child, beating up and sometimes killing trans people for using the "wrong" bathroom, hosting and rallying known terrorist groups against their political opponents, kidnapping the governor of Michigan and DNC vice chair??
Storming the fucking capitol of the US with gallows set up trying to kill politicians and the vice president??? What world do you live in where the MAGA cult is not using political violence? Seriously? Which was one of 11 damn republican terror attacks THAT MONTH.. In what world is there a "presumption of violence" when the right wing organizations have literally layed out a public plan for installing a fascist dictatorship and said that there will be blood if the rest of the country doesn't submit??
This is going to be the first chapter in a book about several assassination attempts during his reign of terror, at least if it turns out the way I expect it to.
They're going to ramp security way up. I wouldn't be surprised if the left finally gets their way with gun bans as a result of this. Right before a fascist takeover.
I usually hear it as "if your friends [...], would you do so too?" If my friends—who I feel are quite level-headed—were jumping off of a bridge, I think they would probably have a pretty good reason. Is there a bear charging us from behind and they've noticed but I haven't? Is it because the bridge is short and they're safely jumping into some water for fun? (I've done this before. If the conditions are right, it's perfectly safe for those who can swim.)
Surround yourself with good, level-headed people. If your friends are arrogant/ignorant or not all that bright, you can't assume they're right to jump. If you've built up a sensible group of peers and they all are or are not doing something, you should at least consider why you are the outlier.
Then again, I just wanted to dispute this saying. I'm not saying I agree with OP here.
I know you're pretty delusional to the extent of vaccine and mask denial in 2024, but maybe take a hint that you keep needing to play make believe in order to defend your far right pals?
Let's not forget, trying to remove access to health care is an act of violence that will cause people to die. Restricting access to women's health alth care is an act of violence that will cause people to die. Outlawing gender affirming care is an act of violence that will cause people to die. Appointing judges to support these policies - and those judges writing opinions enabling those policies as well as opinions restricting environmental regulations - are acts of violence that will cause people to die. Locking migrants in cages is an act of violence that leads to people dying. So why are those acts of violence acceptable but this one is not?
You might say that none of them are acceptable. But let me put it another way. Law enforcement shot and killed the perpetrator of this act of violence and we as a society deem it reasonable and justified. But why shouldn't we do the same thing for this guy?
Liberals would rather literally die than admit they are complicit with fascism. As long as there’s some “other” being killed, they won’t give a shit. Whether it’s blacks, immigrants, minorities, LGBT.
They don’t give a shit about you as long as they get their daily Frappuccino.
Not for any of the weirdo liberals who think that "the high road" is where we should be with fascists who are drooling non-stop with the idea of a second Civil War.
Liberals would rather literally die than admit they are complicit with fascism. As long as there’s some “other” being killed, they won’t give a shit. Whether it’s blacks, immigrants, minorities, LGBT.
Okay bro you obviously live in a made up fantasy world.
Beside it not being the proper democratic way of deciding how to be governed, the problem with political violence is that it quickly spirals out of control and can burn everything to the ground.
Given that he probably knew everything about him was about to become very closely scrutinized, I find it hard to believe a bio description like that is not the motivation here.
So that then makes me wonder if it will prevent Trump from becoming a living martyr. If it becomes publicly and widely known that this attempt was because of Trump's relationship with Epstein, Trump's supporters may not be as driven as they otherwise would be.
His political adversary doesn't think it's unacceptable. He led several thousand people to Congress to lynch the vice president after he lost the election.
The world would be better off without people like Trump in it. I get that we don't want to be like them in espousing violence against people we don't like, but at the same time when you have a person who objectively will make the world a more dangerous and unstable place, along with effecting actual harm against the citizens of his own country, you can only be so tolerant.
Somebody who only speaks violence will not respond to peaceful methods. I'm not excited by the prospect of violence but we also can't just let ourselves be trampled because of some misguided notion that "Well, they decided on violence, there's nothing we can do because violence back would make us worse 🤷♂️"
I loved it when America did political violence on German soldiers. Today's shooter is a patriotic hero engaging in America's most noble pastime, shooting Nazis.
i'll bet the guy was libertarian bent. libertarians and christian evangelicals don't necessarily align politically. even though there is some overlap, there are still plenty of reasons for them to be diametrically opposed.
Ingonna be honest. Trump is a danger to democracy and to the world as a whole. Eliminating him would be a contribution to democracy. However, if you decide to go for him, make sure hes really dead. If he just gets hurt that's a Hufe win for him, because he then can use this attack to deploy a massive anti democratic campaign giving him more Attention.
However, violence should be the lädt option. There are other ways to defeat fascism. Make it possible that the average person can have a good life and don't copy fascists points. In the case of Trump the USA also missed its chance to ban him from the elections.
The problem with taking down Fascism with violence is that you're just killing the figureheads, not the fascist ideas. Say that the assassination attempt was successful - he'd become a martyr who would strengthen those beliefs in people (they want to take us down because we're right type of deal), and his legacy would be easily continued by thousands of influential conservative politicians/foundation members.
Also, political assassination doesn't exactly scream "upholding democracy". If you believe in democracy, you shouldn't want to see a political opponent lose an election for any reason other than the election itself.
Stop making him out to be a martyr before anything happens to him. By repeating the rhetoric that "he'll be a martyr" you are preemptively saying that we can't do anything about it. He needs to have consequences for his actions and not just a refusal to hold him accountable because he'll "be a martyr."
I think that
If they managed to kill trump
You'll just get someone else with the same ideas except they aren't a bumbling idiot
Making them a worse threat
Guys, if the assassination was successful, he would have become a martyr. That would be worse. This is still a bad thing. People forget that when Reagan was shot his approval rating went up. I would bet that this just won Trump the election.
Nah, then the losers lose their golden calf and spend the rest of the time in fighting for control of MAGA. What's the real downside? 2028 gets lost? That's going to happen anyways.
Sad. The only appropriate response is to tell Trump and his GOP toadies to get over it. This is the situation they created. This is the natural consequence of reactionaries and lax gun control. They shat this bed and they absolutely deserve to drown in it.
The best response is exactly his response. He's better then Trump, so he acts like a better person by not saying stupid shit like Trump does. Although I'm sad the shooter missed, political assassination is always bad, and likely will work in Trump's favor. If Trump would have died, another even more radical replacement would have benefitted from it. There is no positive outcome from a political assassination. Trump will either get more support or become a martyr.
But just like usual, they'll lie, take no responsibility, and say they had absolutely nothing to do with inciting violence and hatred like they have for so many years and just blame Democrats for it.
If politicians decides politically to use the military for violence against anyone or anything, is that political violence? And if yes, does that means there is legal political violence?
I just feel it gets very complicated very very fast. If our military is ordered (by our fairly elected goverment) to attack another country without a reason acceptable to international law, it might be legal here, but illegal in the country being attacked. It might be perfectly reasonably, but that doesn't matter, it is literally political violence, both illegal and legal at the same time. Being against political violence or violent political official acts gets messy faster than you can yell "Saddam had WMDs". I don't know if I am trying to make a point, but I think it is hard to condemn political violence per se, without having a long hard look in the mirror.
Even though I disagree with Bernie on a lot, he is a class act. This is absolutely the correct response. It shows that he has moral integrity and stands by his principles
And that is why the defenders of Democracy, the Democratic National Committee, cannot EVER allow him to come even this close to becoming a candidate or any candidate.
Because openly expressing your desire for Republican leaders to die will radicalize base Republicans, which will result in them either committing more terror attacks, or for them to even start demanding a newly elected Trump to be even more far right than he's already expected to be.
I'm so tired of people shitting on Bernie for condemning the violence. This is what decency looks like, and I have no idea why people think goading on more violence will make anything better.
As someone who is pretty opposite to Bernie on most issues, I would've voted for him had he been the nominee. But instead, I voted third party, because I honestly couldn't stand Hilary Clinton. Bernie believes in what he says and I believe he wants what's best for the nation (though I disagree what "best" is), I don't feel the same about Clinton.
People love to talk big, but when someone actually takes action against a self declared actively power seeking fascist (I'm not entirely convinced anyone was actually shot today, or that it wasn't a hired sniper doing exactly what they were paid to do - miss), they run back to authority with their tail tucked firmly between their legs.
Fuck this bullshit.
Political violence has actively and continuously been enacted by white supremacist patriarchal capitalists against the working class and marginalised people for centuries. Fighting back in self defence isn't what's unacceptable.
Lets say he was shot, the only problem anyone claiming to be an antifascist should have with it, is that the shooter missed.
When people tell you who they are, no matter how "lovable", you better listen.
If we are to learn from the successful movements of the past, we can see that all successful pressure has been the collusion of the peaceful and non-peaceful aspects of the movement, such that the peaceful party can lobby the state to concede, saying to them “now see? Wouldn’t you rather deal with me than them? Sit down and make some concessions to those suffering people.” Meanwhile, the non-peaceful protesters escalate the aggression of their actions such as to put a clock on the state.
A murdered Trump is the fastest way to ensure his cult of goons stick around forever. I can already imagine the che guevara style shirts being worn next to the Confederate flag for a century to come.
Actually, scratch that... A botched assassination would be the fastest way. Because now he's a martyr without having to die.
It totally is in the US. Most politicians completely support NRA lobbyists and a best give mild lip service to gun control while the violence rages on. Did you think they gave a shit about non political violence?
Look in his defence
He is also a politician and doesn't want to be shot
And even if he was for political violence it would be terrible press for him to say it
Literally what you're doing, except you're justifying violence against millions, while we're justifying violence against the handful that perpetrate that violence against millions.
We are not the same., and you definitely don't have any moral high ground.
Look Bernie, you would have been a great president but cut the crap.
Political violence was unacceptable because he is white in a western country. He's a clear danger to the states, global stability, human rights and environmental progress. If he was in Iraq 4 countries would have already tried.
Welp, maybe the DNC will let him be president yet in 10 years for spewing nonsense like this. Billionaires running a country IS political violence, even Biden is letting corporations price gouge us and Israel commit genocide
It's these things that really make me worry that Lemmy is too left, or at least too authoritarian-left.
I feel like I couldn't be more left without descending into lunacy, I agree with the spirit of these things, but boy do people really like to take it too far.
There are two wolves inside me, one wants to murder fascist dictators and the other believes that violence is bad. If this metaphor continues any longer I'm sure the 2nd wolf will be shot
exactly, no sane public figure, regardless of their actual thoughts, is going to publicly support the assassin, that's how you land on all watch lists before you even hit post tweet, that's how you cripple your influence and any chance at changing things
Considering the guy in question is being faced with rape/pedo/corruption allegations they could have probably just shut the fuck off and not saying a thing but i guess they must remind the public and his friends in power where his alliance lies
If you are in this thread hand-wringing over how this is going to rally the right and make trump a martyr, fuck right off. Man up and be ready to defend the righteous act of violently pushing back against goddamn fascist fuckwads. Violence is THE ONLY REASONABLE RESPONSE. If you think it isn't, YOU ARE DEAD WRONG.
How about normalizing solutions outside a corrupt and ineffective justice system? When the provably, convicted, guilty walk free no matter how dangerous they are, what options are left to us?
Lot of tech workers in here who claim to deeply need political violence, while also being unable to leave their own home for a job or to pick up groceries.
Well staging an assassination on yourself going as far as using a movie blood capsule on your ear, but then taking it too far and make it obvious by doing an impromptu photo op under the flag is not actually the type of political violence we should condemn.