9 ms·

How the hell did we get here? At a fundamental level, we seem to have lost our sense of what Democracy means. The rules are "I can think you are crass, wrong,

by jkic47 2y ago

How the hell did we get here? At a fundamental level, we seem to have lost our sense of what Democracy means. The rules are "I can think you are crass, wrong, bigoted, geriatric, etc., but if a majority of my countrymen think otherwise, we accept we are not successful in the battle of ideas, and fight another battle of ideas in 4 years". Unless this is a lone, unstable individual, it is more evidence that our system needs more balance. Truly sad that we've descended to this level

daseiner1 2y ago
This is a horrible thing, but sadly nothing new. Pardon the Wikipedia block quote: > Four sitting presidents have been killed: Abraham Lincoln (1865, by John Wilkes Booth), James A. Garfield (1881, by Charles J. Guiteau), William McKinley (1901, by Leon Czolgosz), and John F. Kennedy (1963, by Lee Harvey Oswald). Additionally, two presidents have been injured in attempted assassinations: former president Theodore Roosevelt (1912, by John Schrank) and Ronald Reagan (1981, by John Hinckley Jr.) If anything we’ve been “overdue”.
- gnicholas 2y ago
  It's not very common in the modern era, though I would add in RFK Sr., who was assassinated while running for president several decades ago: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assassination_of_Robert_F._Kennedy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assassination_of_Robert_F._Ken...
- LarsDu88 2y ago
  6/45 presidents have been shot today. Today that number is 7/45 So it went from 13% to 15%. Not only that, but firearms technology has advanced considerably. If anything, statistically speaking we've been incredibly lucky in the past 30 years
  - spaceship__sun 2y ago
    Curious how the shooter missed though. And just, how they seem to miss quite often in general.
    - christophilus 2y ago
      It’s probably not easy to take careful aim while in a large crowd without someone noticing— especially since there are skilled professionals whose only job is to watch for people taking careful aim…
      - qup 2y ago
        Dude was on a roof. 400ft away
        defrost 2y ago
        Less than 140 yards and missed? Firstly needs to learn how to engage in politics w/out a gun. Also needs to practice. Meanwhile, next door in Australia: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MEY00iJv4CQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MEY00iJv4CQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W6KJM-MODME https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W6KJM-MODME but we're just farmers.
        Jensson 2y ago
        > Less than 140 yards and missed? Person aimed for the head, seems like he wasn't trained how to kill people. Anyway, the person knew they would die seconds later, heavy breathing makes it is massively harder to aim when you are nervous, then it is easy to miss a moving head at 140 yards.
        chgs 2y ago
        Presumably Trump would have a vest on
        Jensson 2y ago
        Rifle rounds go straight through medium vests, you need a really heavy and bulky vest to stop them, Trump wouldn't wear one of those. The typical vests you see just stop low caliber bullets like pistols, and then you hope secret service can stop anyone with a rifle from getting a shot.
  - sam_goody 2y ago
    Being President is statistically the most dangerous job in the United States Compared to other places (like ancient Greece that switched rulers twice a year).. I guess it's a risky job, but someone's gotta do it.
    - Log_out_ 2y ago
      Have you considered exile? The populatuon majority declares you a dividing figure and banishes you for ten years from the (city)state(s). Very Preferable to civil war.
- taimurkhaliq786 2y ago
  [flagged]
- comfysocks 2y ago
  Maybe, but hopefully we can move towards a future with more voting and less violence.
  - redeeman 2y ago
    and maybe if we are really lucky, we could also move towards a future where candidates are allowed to be on the ballot, and shouldnt be kept off to "save democracy" - we must save democracy by disallowing people voting for who they want!
    - bitnasty 2y ago
      Or a future where the loser doesn’t desperately cling to power and incite violence to try to stop the peaceful transfer of power.
    - comfysocks 2y ago
      I actually agreed that Trump should be on the ballot back when that was a thing. I guess my point is: if anyone thinks their grievances justifies violence, remember that the other side has grievances too. We have free speech in the United States, so we are free to say things like “Biden is senile” or “Trump is anti-democratic.” But if we can’t exercise free speech and disagree without descending into violence, then it will be our downfall. Xi and Putin will be delighted. Maybe they’ll take over and we’ll have a system where saying the wrong thing gets you disappeared, strapped to a tiger chair, or thrown out of a window.
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
- dredmorbius 2y ago
  Excepting Eisenhower and Johnson, every US president (or president-elect) has been subject to an assassination attempt dating back nearly a century to Herbert Hoover (1929--1933). Shots have been fired at FDR, Truman, Kennedy(†), Ford, Reagan, Clinton, and yesterday. Bombs or explosives have been placed or deployed against Hoover, Truman, Kennedy, GHW Bush, Clinton, GW Bush, and Obama. <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_presidential_assassination_attempts_and_plots https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_presiden...>
  - dredmorbius 2y ago
    Clarifying: attempt or plot, though some physical action was taken against all but Eisenhower & Johnson, per Wikipedia.
- LocalH 2y ago
  "And what country can preserve it’s liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is it’s natural manure." - Thomas Jefferson, 1787
  - cafard 2y ago
    And what was TJ's attitude when New England cut up rough about the embargo?
    - krapp 2y ago
      Thomas Jefferson was nothing if not a massive hypocrite. He waxed eloquent about the nobility of violence done by other men to other men, but when the British showed up at Monticello he fled like a coward. Unsurprising for a man who styled himself a yeoman farmer but had slaves and children do all of his work for him.
- therealdrag0 2y ago
  Multiple Attacks and attempted attacks have happened in last 10 years even. A far right winger sent 16 mail bombs to democrats (including Biden and Obama) in 2018, and a dozen men tried to nap Michigan governed.
hanniabu 2y ago
[flagged]
- HaZeust 2y ago
  While correct, “The ballot of the bullet” can be deemed violent language, refrain from it. It’s better unspoken. Plus, the shooter shot innocents. This wasn’t just a check and balance on an authority, this was an act of terror on civilians.
  - hanniabu 2y ago
    Terrorism vs patriotism is decided by the victor
    - HaZeust 2y ago
      Well, today it's terrorism.
tithe 2y ago
I think part of the answer is how you phrased the situation yourself, as a "battle of ideas." The rhetoric by both "left" and "right" platforms pitches a divided America, and a "battle for the soul of the nation." Battle against whom? My own countrymen? For what? For my vision for America? I was unsettled when I heard this (but maybe I'm just too sensitive.) When you combine this kind of inflammatory speech with blanket group classifications like "liberals" or "MAGA" or "democrats" or whatever, you've now identified an enemy in this "battle", and as I've seen lately, can completely lose sight that these people are our countrymen too.
- AnimalMuppet 2y ago
  The language on both sides is apocalyptic - if we don't win this election, it's the end of America! And you have to fight for your country, or you won't have one! It's a war! Well, if you call it a war enough times, sooner or later somebody will take you literally.
  - tithe 2y ago
    I think you're right. That kind of language taps energy to get bases riled up, but it's a dangerous kind of excitement (panic?) that can lead to desperate acts. It makes my stomach turn that people - and I - can be susceptible to this, and furthermore that it's taken advantage of. Politicians are skilled hackers, too.
    - EasyMark 2y ago
      It also, I think, sometimes gives those on the edge of doing bad things, a little push and then they do terrible things like this.
  - neverartful 2y ago
    I think it's that along with a few other things. One is the media and that's nothing new. Don Henley's excellent song 'Dirty Laundry' is all about how the media loves to have bad things happen (dirty laundry) for them to report about. Another is the internet. There's something about engaging electronically that causes (I believe) people to forget that they're engaging with other people. In other words, they (generally) react more crass/aggressive than they would in person. I also believe that there is a growing acceptance (among both major parties) that the ends justify the means. This is actually the one that frightens me the most. It seems like as time goes by you see more of it. It's a dangerous path and we'll be suffering the consequences more and more.
krapp 2y ago
>The rules are "I can think you are crass, wrong, bigoted, geriatric, etc., but if a majority of my countrymen think otherwise, we accept we are not successful in the battle of ideas, and fight another battle of ideas in 4 years". Trump was never supported, much less elected, by a majority of Americans. He didn't even get the majority of votes in the election he won. The American political system was explicitly designed not to empower the will of the majority, because that would have been an existential threat to the status quo (slavery) at the time. And while it might be nice to claim that we should be civil participants in a battle of ideas, it would be naive to ignore the effect of centuries of gun culture and polarizing neo-reactionary rhetoric on American politics. Regardless of what the founding fathers may have intended (and notwithstanding that they disagreed on many things) a lot of Americans believe political violence is a necessity and a virtue. They lecture people on the virtues of guns after every school shooting, and speak wistfully about "watering the tree of liberty with the blood of tyrants." America has been edging itself with talk of a "cold civil war" for years now. It's like a morbid game of chicken.
- erellsworth 2y ago
  Looks like you're getting down voted a lot for this but it's all true. Trump only became president because the electoral college weighs geography higher than population. So does the senate.
  - belorn 2y ago
    The concept is less surprising when degressive proportionality (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Degressive_proportionality https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Degressive_proportionality) happens to be fairly common. Election system that give weight to geography is generally done so to encourage cooperation where people otherwise would prefer going alone. Both EU and US have large historical reasons to unify low population regions with a lot of natural resources with high population regions. Same is true in Germany, Iceland, Sweden and so on, all with varied degrees of giving weight to geography.
  - jiggawatts 2y ago
    [flagged]
mattbillenstein 2y ago
[flagged]
- bamboozled 2y ago
  [flagged]
beaglesss 2y ago
[flagged]
- meiraleal 2y ago
  Now people are repeatedly telling this to justify the shooting. People will do everything besides think they might be in the wrong.
  - beaglesss 2y ago
    [flagged]
- EasyMark 2y ago
  We don’t even know the motives of the shooter yet. Let’s not hyperventilate and give it a few days, there will be a drip drip drip of info, he probably has a trail online, they usually do.
- Larrikin 2y ago
  [flagged]
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
proc0 2y ago
He has been compared to Hitler countless times, and was demonized by the media for years, meanwhile his supporters were dismissed as lunatics and conspiracy theorists when this is pointed out. We literally almost had civil war or at least a real insurrection today.
- meiraleal 2y ago
  [flagged]
  - christophilus 2y ago
    If you look through history at insurrections, whatever January 6 was, it doesn’t seem to be in that category. If it is in the same category, it’s one of the lamest, most peaceful, bungled insurrections on the books. It looks more like a rowdy protest, and that’s probably what it was.
    - meiraleal 2y ago
      A lame insurrection is still an insurrection. When was the last time the US Capitol was stormed by organized revolted people?
      - typeofhuman 2y ago
        April 9, 2024 https://www.washingtonpost.com/dc-md-va/2024/04/09/israel-gaza-war-protest-cafeteria-dirksen-senate-capitol-dc/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/dc-md-va/2024/04/09/israel-ga...
        klyrs 2y ago
        The Senate Cafeteria Insurrection of '24? No, blockading the lunch counter doesn't compare to violently interrupting the count of electoral votes. They didn't even beat up any cops. They didn't "storm" the building, they orderly unfurled their protest signs and peacefully got arrested.
klyrs 2y ago
[flagged]
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
lolinder 2y ago
We got here because both sides have for the last 8 years consistently failed to treat one another as human beings with opinions rather than the literal devil incarnate. There are a substantial number of people on this forum who sincerely believe that if Trump is elected there will not be another election. If enough people sincerely believe that, one of them will eventually decide that it's worth it to sacrifice their own life to ensure the survival of democracy in America.
- IAmGraydon 2y ago
  That's correct. And the idea that Trump will end democracy is a core part of the left's fear campaign. They share responsibility for this.
  - voisin 2y ago
    Oh come on man. He clearly tried to subvert the last election and came within steps of his VP being killed by a mob he encoded while trying to certify the election. This isn’t just a fear campaign.
    - lolinder 2y ago
      It's a fear campaign, and the leaders of the Democratic party know it. Trump regularly behaves completely irresponsibly and is a terrible loser, and Trump is definitely capable of (intentionally and otherwise) inciting violence, but if you compare the actions of the Democratic leadership to their rhetoric you can clearly see they don't believe the full extent of their own rhetoric about him. They play up the apocalyptic fears for democracy itself because they know it's the only card they have left after nominating Biden. If they were serious about protecting democracy they'd have kicked him out last year when there was still time to build momentum for an electable candidate, rather than continuing to protect his ego. If they were serious about protecting democracy they would have tried harder to court the moderate voters (who are very courtable right now if anyone cared to try). If they were serious about protecting democracy they would have done anything other than focus exclusively on how terrible Trump is for the last four years, because they know that you don't beat a fire by fanning it. They would have deescalated, but instead they escalated, and they absolutely share responsibility for this.
iJohnDoe 2y ago
[flagged]
- ImJamal 2y ago
  If that is a fear, then maybe don't kill him until he actually has done the thing you fear. Killing somebody before they do the bad thing seems like killing people for thought crimes.
  - trealira 2y ago
    Yes, if you're scared of somebody becoming a dictator, obviously you should wait until they actually become a dictator before trying to kill them, or else you're being like the government from Orwell's book 1984. That's just a silly argument.
    - ImJamal 2y ago
      Plenty of people think Biden is a dictator. Plenty of people thought Obama and Bush were dictators. Killing people before they actually become a dictator would mean every president for the last several decades would be assassinated.
      - trealira 2y ago
        The answer should then be to get a better judgement of who is likely to become dictator, not to say "wait until they become dictator first." Like, if you really think they're going to be dictator, it would be best to stop them before they become one; it's harder to oppose a dictator once they fully control the government. It's for that reason that people say they would go back in time to kill Hitler. That's why I'm calling your argument silly.
        ImJamal 2y ago
        Plenty of people say we should glass Gaza to kill all the terrorists as well. Killing people who haven't done anything yet is wrong.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
PicassoCTs 2y ago
>"..and fight another battle of ideas in 4 years" The assassination target promised loudly and repeatedly, it would not adhere to that. This a vote for him would be the last vote. Guy may as well have be another https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georg_Elser https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georg_Elser if trump gets to power against the mummified establishment figure.
- ElectronCharge 2y ago
  You are misinformed.
JamesAdir 2y ago
I know it sounds awful, but I blame the media. If you looked at some of the leading liberal newspapers in America, the minutes and hours after the shooting, you could see how they try to minimize the event, instead of reporting it truthfully.
mistermann 2y ago
> and fight another battle of ideas in 4 years". Someone should shoot "democracy" itself. It's 2024, why are we still driving a political system with training wheels that always takes us to places other than where 90%+ of people want to go? Could it maybe be in part because we are immersed in pro-"democracy" propaganda from the day we are born, and are denied the educational curriculum (set by "democracy") that would give us the tools to think and engage in discourse at a level that would allow us to realize it, or at least consider the idea without everyone losing their cool? Now, sticking with convention: has anyone any epistemically unsound memorized memes and catch phrases for me, to "prove" "democracy" is the ~best we can do, and that ideas like replacing it with a more sophisticated, non-deceptive implementation shan't be discussed among "the adults at the table"? Inb4 "this isn't what HN is for". Protip, fellow Humans: it is possible to think your way out of this simulation we are in, at least substantially (at which point you can rest, regroup, and plan for the next stage of ascent). And it isn't even very hard. It is little more than doing just what we Humans have proven ourselves excellent at, most of the time: 1. Identify a challenge. 2. Solve it. Heck, this problem is actually mostly far more trivial[2] than things we do every day without thinking twice about it. It's mostly just not on our radar, and heavily psychologically protected territory[1]. But religion was this way once also, and science handed it an ass whooping, didn't it? [1] Simple experiments can be run on social media or IRL to demonstrate this: specific prompts will produce highly predictable responses. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Normal_distribution https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Normal_distribution https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Large_language_model https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Large_language_model [2] Irony noted lol
Yawrehto 2y ago
>How the hell did we get here?...Truly sad that we've descended to this level. By the way, sorry that this comment is so long. This level of violence isn't new. This has never been new. There's always been stuff like this. Yes, today's era of political polarization is bad, but the US seems to go through cycles of great polarization and regrettably frequent violence followed by fairly calm periods - at least by one metric (e.g, by 'civil wars' 1860-65 was the worst, but if you measured by violent labor strikes the late 1800s-early 1900s were). Thus you get the American Revolution, then a period of relative calm, then the years leading up to the Civil War and the Civil War itself. Then a period of relative quiet, followed by the much smaller strikes, which often turned violent, as well as pogroms against blacks. Then relative quiet, then Vietnam, Civil Rights, etc. Summary of the data following: Proceeding in fifty-year intervals back from 2020-July 13,2024, ending at 1770-July 13, 1774, this era placed #2 in civil unrest, but #4 out of 6 - ie, below average - in a broader category, counting coups, massacres, civil unrest, rebellions, worker deaths due to labor disputes, and racial violence. For a sense of the persistence of it, look at Wikipedia's page[1]. In fact, if anything, it seems to be slowing down; Wikipedia (thus far) lists 17 incidents from 2020-2024 (inclusive). Scrolling 50, 100, 150, 200, etc. years back shows the following: 50 years ago [1970-July 13,1974]: 28 (!) 100 years ago [1920-July 13,1924]: 9. 150 years ago [1870-July 13,1874]: 10. Again, possibly an underestimate. 200 years ago [1820-July 13,1824]: 0. This is almost certainly an underestimate, but it's how many Wikipedia lists. 250 years ago [1770-July 13, 1774]: 5[2] So, we're the second-highest. However, Wikipedia also helpfully has lists of coup attempts, massacres, etc. So! [Note that this includes things that partially include that time period, e.g., the American Revolution, and larger things, e.g., the Black Panthers. This is from Wikipedia; you can edit it if you want. The version I'm using is accurate as of when I'm writing this] Combined number of coups[3], massacres[4], civil unrest[1][2], rebellions[5], worker deaths "from labor disputes"[counts incidents, not individual deaths] [6], and racial violence[7] [may have some double counting], moving in 50 year intervals back from 2020-July 13,2024: 2020-July 13,2024: Coup attempts: 2, massacres: 3, civil unrest: 17, rebellions: 2, worker deaths: 0, racial violence: 1 [it lumps police brutality together; you're welcome to object]. Total: 25. 1970-July 13,1974: coups: 0, massacres: 1, civil unrest: 28, rebellions: 5, worker deaths: 0, racial violence: 15. Total: 49. 1920-July 13,1924: Coups: 0, Massacres: 6, Civil unrest: 9, rebellions: 1 [Coal Wars], worker deaths: 14, racial violence: 7 [doesn't count KKK as overarching thing]. Total: 37 1870-July 13,1874: Coups: 1 [state], Massacres: 3, Civil unrest: 10, rebellions: 0, worker deaths: 1, racial violence: 12, Total: 27 1820-July 13,1824: Coups: 0, Massacres: 0, Civil unrest: 0 [somehow], rebellions: 0, worker deaths: 0, racial violence: 1, not including slavery. Total: 1 1770-July 13,1774: Coups: 0, Massacres: 1, Civil unrest: 5, rebellions: 2 [includes American revolution], worker deaths: 0, racial violence: 0, not counting slavery. Total: 8. So we come in at position #4 out of 6. A reasonable argument could be made that we're actually BELOW average currently. [1] en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_incidents_of_civil_unrest_in_the_United_States. [2] en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_incidents_of_civil_unrest_in_Colonial_North_America [3] en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_coups_and_coup_attempts_by_country#United_States [this counts state-level attempts] [4] en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_massacres_in_the_United_States. Erratic about which mass shootings it includes. [5] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_rebellions_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_rebellions_in_the_Unit... [6] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_worker_deaths_in_United_States_labor_disputes https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_worker_deaths_in_Unite... [7] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_racial_violence_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_racial_violence_in_the_Un...
zarathustreal 2y ago
Those are the stated rules, let’s be clear about that. The actual rules are that there are no rules. Painting an election by popular vote as a “battle of ideas” is falling into the all-too-common trap of thinking that we are rational agents. I can’t even begin to expand on how incorrect that is. Even a little bit of candid consideration would uncover the truth of this. Political ads aren’t logical arguments. They’re emotional appeals. Hell, “he should be in charge because he’s most popular” is itself an ad populum argument. It’s nonsense to begin with.
tibbydudeza 2y ago
It eerily reminds me of the dialogue scene from that recent movie. Journalists: We are Americans. Soldier: What kind of American are you ???.
- shrimp_emoji 2y ago
  That was an edgy trailer cut. In the movie, he clarified "South American, Central American...?" He wanted to know if they were from the U.S. and kill them if they weren't. (That's why he only shot the two Asians.)
- trealira 2y ago
  Sorry, what movie is this? I don't watch many movies.
  - c0brac0bra 2y ago
    You're not missing anything.
  - thirdsun 2y ago
    Civil War (2024)
    - trealira 2y ago
      Thanks!
remarkEon 2y ago
>How the hell did we get here? Since 2016 about half the country has been fed a steady stream of rhetoric that seeks to define Trump as a literal - not figurative or metaphorical - existential threat to "our democracy". A Hitler 2.0 or worse, and the mark of Fascism finally coming to the United States. If you take those arguments at face value, and really and truly believe they are true, then it is unsurprising that someone took a shot at "New Hitler". Because why wouldn't someone do that if it was true? Of course it isn't true, and even the people who say this stuff don't believe it[1]. [1] https://x.com/Timodc/status/1811136469911711877 https://x.com/Timodc/status/1811136469911711877
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- mrguyorama 2y ago
  If you think "threat to our democracy" rhetoric started "from the left" in 2016, you should go lookup what Fox News has been saying for decades. War on christmas? War on Christianity? Obama isn't even a real american so he is an illegitimate president? "They're coming for our children"? Christ that one regularly gets drag story time cleared out due to violent threats. How dare someone read a book to a child while wearing a dress. Or maybe you forget the decades of bombing abortion clinics? You know we USED to have violent hard left organizations like the Black Panthers and Weather Underground. Now the right has to wave vaguely at "auntie fa", a "group" as real as "anonymous".
  - remarkEon 2y ago
    Honestly? I think the difference here is that Bill O'Reilly saying a bunch of BS on his TV show is pretty starkly different from the "paper of record" and the sitting President telling voters that "if this other guy wins the election democracy ends". You can see the difference in authority of voice here, right? That's a rhetorical framing that justifies a lot of extreme action. Arguably, it justifies preventing Trump from assuming office if he wins again in November. Is this what people really believe? I don't think so, because if it was people in government would've celebrated the assassination attempt.
poikroequ 2y ago
Did you not see the insurrection on the capital just a few years ago? People chanting Hang Mike Pence? How about the person who blew up a small part of downtown Nashville one Christmas morning because lizard people? There's lots of lunatics out there, plenty to go around.
incomingpain 2y ago
>How the hell did we get here? Lets go backwards. Messaging from the democrat side has been that trump is a threat to democracy, he's a fascist nazi, etc etc. You've seen the vilification. Days prior Biden literally said to put Trump in the bullseye and 'elimination' is necessary. Biden has withdrawn all these ads. https://www.visualcapitalist.com/the-polarization-of-politics-in-america/ https://www.visualcapitalist.com/the-polarization-of-politic... Political polarization is primarily derived from the democrat side. Echo chambers are mostly democrat sided. Reddit for example having banned r/thedonald for example. Each side now lives separately and aren't talking to each other except to dunk on each other's dumbest candidates. John Stewart's fault. The fix here has to come from the democrat side, end the identity politics, and start preaching unity, democracy, and everyone is on the same team. It does seem that they have shifted their messaging, but to change your messaging strategy 3 months before the election is rather election ending.
- AnimalMuppet 2y ago
  > Political polarization is primarily derived from the democrat side. Say what? (Even the article you cite does not support your claim.) > Echo chambers are mostly democrat sided. Double what? There is plenty of villification coming from Trump and the right. (Read his speeches.) There is plenty of violent rhetoric on the right. There is a big echo chamber on the right. If you don't see it, maybe you're in an echo chamber?
- trealira 2y ago
  > Political polarization is primarily derived from the democrat side. You're really going to say that, while Trump sends out campaign emails like this? > BIDEN'S DAY OF RECKONING IS COMING > He tried to publicly torture and humiliate me ... BUT HE FAILED. > He tried to raid my home and take me out with deadly force... BUT HE FAILED. > He tried to bury me with so many witch hunts that I'd be forced to quit... BUT HE FAILED. > STAND WITH TRUMP > 34 RIGGED FELONY CONVICTIONS calls for an unprecedented response. > And if our response to his tyrannical regime isn't MASSIVE, Biden will move onto his next target: YOU! > THEY WANT TO SENTENCE ME TO DEATH! > You know they’d do it if they could, but Crooked Joe’s team of lowlifes and radical left thugs will settle for a LIFE SENTENCE. ... > Remember, it’s not me they’re after… > THEY’RE AFTER YOU - I’M JUST STANDING IN THEIR WAY! > But with your support, > I’ll NEVER give up. > I’LL NEVER SURRENDER! ... > Your support is the only thing standing between the Biden regime and their ultimate goal of DESTROYING AMERICA ONCE AND FOR ALL. This sort of rhetoric is standard. Seems like everyone has just forgotten about it.
winternett 2y ago
I don't know if we can honestly ask how did we get here... January 6th was just one of many shining beacons to let us know that this issue was a powder keg. Social Media has added a layer of deep disinformation & divisive ideological bubbles that are all largely going unchecked as well, where anyone can be anyone, and where it can be quite profitable for personalities to become incendiary... We're really not holding anyone, nor the bodies managing social media and news media accountable for their actions at all, which opens the doors to sensationalism, and even to embellishment on issues which are normally meant to be commonplace and handled professionally. I think everyone has had fair warning that the rhetoric would lead to more drama, and the country has ignored it in a quest to line pockets. Politics are meant to be boring, and in order to serve Democracy, it simply can't ignore and even encroach on basic rights of others it represents. We have gone too far in political extremes, and this is the end result, slowly getting worse over time. It's clear that we need to stop making personal servants celebrities, and to stop watching and pushing politics as if it's a TV drama or Football game, otherwise it's only going to get worse... That being said, there is a lot more organization and agendas involved in politics now than in the past. Technology now is widely being used against everyone to achieve and monitor goals and progress in capturing profit... Sometimes as tech insiders, we have to be careful about what we implement and even say "no" as a response to being asked to do things that undermine people and the ethical balance of the world. Profiting off of tech is not good if it makes the world we all live in deeply unstable. There's no castle, even in Maui, that anyone can build to survive political and economic collapse of the country nor the world. There is a better way to do all of this.
hulitu 2y ago
> How the hell did we get here? Too many guns ? Too much interference of the CIA ? > At a fundamental level, we seem to have lost our sense of what Democracy means. What means democracy ? Rich people buying politicians to promote laws which will make them richer ? A bunch of "citizens" sending other "citizens" to die "for their country" so some assholes can increase profits ?
stefantalpalaru 2y ago
[dead]
matrix87 2y ago
> Unless this is a lone, unstable individual, it is more evidence that our system needs more balance. When is it ever not? A lot easier to believe than a bunch of handwavey "across the aisle" garbage

by jkic47 2y ago

daseiner1 2y ago

This is a horrible thing, but sadly nothing new. Pardon the Wikipedia block quote: > Four sitting presidents have been killed: Abraham Lincoln (1865, by John Wilkes Booth), James A. Garfield (1881, by Charles J. Guiteau), William McKinley (1901, by Leon Czolgosz), and John F. Kennedy (1963, by Lee Harvey Oswald). Additionally, two presidents have been injured in attempted assassinations: former president Theodore Roosevelt (1912, by John Schrank) and Ronald Reagan (1981, by John Hinckley Jr.) If anything we’ve been “overdue”.

gnicholas 2y ago
It's not very common in the modern era, though I would add in RFK Sr., who was assassinated while running for president several decades ago: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assassination_of_Robert_F._Kennedy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assassination_of_Robert_F._Ken...
LarsDu88 2y ago
6/45 presidents have been shot today. Today that number is 7/45 So it went from 13% to 15%. Not only that, but firearms technology has advanced considerably. If anything, statistically speaking we've been incredibly lucky in the past 30 years
- spaceship__sun 2y ago
  Curious how the shooter missed though. And just, how they seem to miss quite often in general.
  - christophilus 2y ago
    It’s probably not easy to take careful aim while in a large crowd without someone noticing— especially since there are skilled professionals whose only job is to watch for people taking careful aim…
    - qup 2y ago
      Dude was on a roof. 400ft away
      - defrost 2y ago
        Less than 140 yards and missed? Firstly needs to learn how to engage in politics w/out a gun. Also needs to practice. Meanwhile, next door in Australia: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MEY00iJv4CQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MEY00iJv4CQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W6KJM-MODME https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W6KJM-MODME but we're just farmers.
        Jensson 2y ago
        > Less than 140 yards and missed? Person aimed for the head, seems like he wasn't trained how to kill people. Anyway, the person knew they would die seconds later, heavy breathing makes it is massively harder to aim when you are nervous, then it is easy to miss a moving head at 140 yards.
        chgs 2y ago
        Presumably Trump would have a vest on
        Jensson 2y ago
        Rifle rounds go straight through medium vests, you need a really heavy and bulky vest to stop them, Trump wouldn't wear one of those. The typical vests you see just stop low caliber bullets like pistols, and then you hope secret service can stop anyone with a rifle from getting a shot.
- sam_goody 2y ago
  Being President is statistically the most dangerous job in the United States Compared to other places (like ancient Greece that switched rulers twice a year).. I guess it's a risky job, but someone's gotta do it.
  - Log_out_ 2y ago
    Have you considered exile? The populatuon majority declares you a dividing figure and banishes you for ten years from the (city)state(s). Very Preferable to civil war.
taimurkhaliq786 2y ago
[flagged]
comfysocks 2y ago
Maybe, but hopefully we can move towards a future with more voting and less violence.
- redeeman 2y ago
  and maybe if we are really lucky, we could also move towards a future where candidates are allowed to be on the ballot, and shouldnt be kept off to "save democracy" - we must save democracy by disallowing people voting for who they want!
  - bitnasty 2y ago
    Or a future where the loser doesn’t desperately cling to power and incite violence to try to stop the peaceful transfer of power.
  - comfysocks 2y ago
    I actually agreed that Trump should be on the ballot back when that was a thing. I guess my point is: if anyone thinks their grievances justifies violence, remember that the other side has grievances too. We have free speech in the United States, so we are free to say things like “Biden is senile” or “Trump is anti-democratic.” But if we can’t exercise free speech and disagree without descending into violence, then it will be our downfall. Xi and Putin will be delighted. Maybe they’ll take over and we’ll have a system where saying the wrong thing gets you disappeared, strapped to a tiger chair, or thrown out of a window.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
dredmorbius 2y ago
Excepting Eisenhower and Johnson, every US president (or president-elect) has been subject to an assassination attempt dating back nearly a century to Herbert Hoover (1929--1933). Shots have been fired at FDR, Truman, Kennedy(†), Ford, Reagan, Clinton, and yesterday. Bombs or explosives have been placed or deployed against Hoover, Truman, Kennedy, GHW Bush, Clinton, GW Bush, and Obama. <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_presidential_assassination_attempts_and_plots https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_presiden...>
- dredmorbius 2y ago
  Clarifying: attempt or plot, though some physical action was taken against all but Eisenhower & Johnson, per Wikipedia.
LocalH 2y ago
"And what country can preserve it’s liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is it’s natural manure." - Thomas Jefferson, 1787
- cafard 2y ago
  And what was TJ's attitude when New England cut up rough about the embargo?
  - krapp 2y ago
    Thomas Jefferson was nothing if not a massive hypocrite. He waxed eloquent about the nobility of violence done by other men to other men, but when the British showed up at Monticello he fled like a coward. Unsurprising for a man who styled himself a yeoman farmer but had slaves and children do all of his work for him.
therealdrag0 2y ago
Multiple Attacks and attempted attacks have happened in last 10 years even. A far right winger sent 16 mail bombs to democrats (including Biden and Obama) in 2018, and a dozen men tried to nap Michigan governed.

hanniabu 2y ago

[flagged]

HaZeust 2y ago
While correct, “The ballot of the bullet” can be deemed violent language, refrain from it. It’s better unspoken. Plus, the shooter shot innocents. This wasn’t just a check and balance on an authority, this was an act of terror on civilians.
- hanniabu 2y ago
  Terrorism vs patriotism is decided by the victor
  - HaZeust 2y ago
    Well, today it's terrorism.

tithe 2y ago

I think part of the answer is how you phrased the situation yourself, as a "battle of ideas." The rhetoric by both "left" and "right" platforms pitches a divided America, and a "battle for the soul of the nation." Battle against whom? My own countrymen? For what? For my vision for America? I was unsettled when I heard this (but maybe I'm just too sensitive.) When you combine this kind of inflammatory speech with blanket group classifications like "liberals" or "MAGA" or "democrats" or whatever, you've now identified an enemy in this "battle", and as I've seen lately, can completely lose sight that these people are our countrymen too.

AnimalMuppet 2y ago
The language on both sides is apocalyptic - if we don't win this election, it's the end of America! And you have to fight for your country, or you won't have one! It's a war! Well, if you call it a war enough times, sooner or later somebody will take you literally.
- tithe 2y ago
  I think you're right. That kind of language taps energy to get bases riled up, but it's a dangerous kind of excitement (panic?) that can lead to desperate acts. It makes my stomach turn that people - and I - can be susceptible to this, and furthermore that it's taken advantage of. Politicians are skilled hackers, too.
  - EasyMark 2y ago
    It also, I think, sometimes gives those on the edge of doing bad things, a little push and then they do terrible things like this.
- neverartful 2y ago
  I think it's that along with a few other things. One is the media and that's nothing new. Don Henley's excellent song 'Dirty Laundry' is all about how the media loves to have bad things happen (dirty laundry) for them to report about. Another is the internet. There's something about engaging electronically that causes (I believe) people to forget that they're engaging with other people. In other words, they (generally) react more crass/aggressive than they would in person. I also believe that there is a growing acceptance (among both major parties) that the ends justify the means. This is actually the one that frightens me the most. It seems like as time goes by you see more of it. It's a dangerous path and we'll be suffering the consequences more and more.

krapp 2y ago

>The rules are "I can think you are crass, wrong, bigoted, geriatric, etc., but if a majority of my countrymen think otherwise, we accept we are not successful in the battle of ideas, and fight another battle of ideas in 4 years". Trump was never supported, much less elected, by a majority of Americans. He didn't even get the majority of votes in the election he won. The American political system was explicitly designed not to empower the will of the majority, because that would have been an existential threat to the status quo (slavery) at the time. And while it might be nice to claim that we should be civil participants in a battle of ideas, it would be naive to ignore the effect of centuries of gun culture and polarizing neo-reactionary rhetoric on American politics. Regardless of what the founding fathers may have intended (and notwithstanding that they disagreed on many things) a lot of Americans believe political violence is a necessity and a virtue. They lecture people on the virtues of guns after every school shooting, and speak wistfully about "watering the tree of liberty with the blood of tyrants." America has been edging itself with talk of a "cold civil war" for years now. It's like a morbid game of chicken.

erellsworth 2y ago
Looks like you're getting down voted a lot for this but it's all true. Trump only became president because the electoral college weighs geography higher than population. So does the senate.
- belorn 2y ago
  The concept is less surprising when degressive proportionality (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Degressive_proportionality https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Degressive_proportionality) happens to be fairly common. Election system that give weight to geography is generally done so to encourage cooperation where people otherwise would prefer going alone. Both EU and US have large historical reasons to unify low population regions with a lot of natural resources with high population regions. Same is true in Germany, Iceland, Sweden and so on, all with varied degrees of giving weight to geography.
- jiggawatts 2y ago
  [flagged]

mattbillenstein 2y ago

[flagged]

bamboozled 2y ago
[flagged]

beaglesss 2y ago

[flagged]

meiraleal 2y ago
Now people are repeatedly telling this to justify the shooting. People will do everything besides think they might be in the wrong.
- beaglesss 2y ago
  [flagged]
EasyMark 2y ago
We don’t even know the motives of the shooter yet. Let’s not hyperventilate and give it a few days, there will be a drip drip drip of info, he probably has a trail online, they usually do.
Larrikin 2y ago
[flagged]
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]

proc0 2y ago

He has been compared to Hitler countless times, and was demonized by the media for years, meanwhile his supporters were dismissed as lunatics and conspiracy theorists when this is pointed out. We literally almost had civil war or at least a real insurrection today.

meiraleal 2y ago
[flagged]
- christophilus 2y ago
  If you look through history at insurrections, whatever January 6 was, it doesn’t seem to be in that category. If it is in the same category, it’s one of the lamest, most peaceful, bungled insurrections on the books. It looks more like a rowdy protest, and that’s probably what it was.
  - meiraleal 2y ago
    A lame insurrection is still an insurrection. When was the last time the US Capitol was stormed by organized revolted people?
    - typeofhuman 2y ago
      April 9, 2024 https://www.washingtonpost.com/dc-md-va/2024/04/09/israel-gaza-war-protest-cafeteria-dirksen-senate-capitol-dc/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/dc-md-va/2024/04/09/israel-ga...
      - klyrs 2y ago
        The Senate Cafeteria Insurrection of '24? No, blockading the lunch counter doesn't compare to violently interrupting the count of electoral votes. They didn't even beat up any cops. They didn't "storm" the building, they orderly unfurled their protest signs and peacefully got arrested.

klyrs 2y ago

[flagged]

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

lolinder 2y ago

We got here because both sides have for the last 8 years consistently failed to treat one another as human beings with opinions rather than the literal devil incarnate. There are a substantial number of people on this forum who sincerely believe that if Trump is elected there will not be another election. If enough people sincerely believe that, one of them will eventually decide that it's worth it to sacrifice their own life to ensure the survival of democracy in America.

IAmGraydon 2y ago
That's correct. And the idea that Trump will end democracy is a core part of the left's fear campaign. They share responsibility for this.
- voisin 2y ago
  Oh come on man. He clearly tried to subvert the last election and came within steps of his VP being killed by a mob he encoded while trying to certify the election. This isn’t just a fear campaign.
  - lolinder 2y ago
    It's a fear campaign, and the leaders of the Democratic party know it. Trump regularly behaves completely irresponsibly and is a terrible loser, and Trump is definitely capable of (intentionally and otherwise) inciting violence, but if you compare the actions of the Democratic leadership to their rhetoric you can clearly see they don't believe the full extent of their own rhetoric about him. They play up the apocalyptic fears for democracy itself because they know it's the only card they have left after nominating Biden. If they were serious about protecting democracy they'd have kicked him out last year when there was still time to build momentum for an electable candidate, rather than continuing to protect his ego. If they were serious about protecting democracy they would have tried harder to court the moderate voters (who are very courtable right now if anyone cared to try). If they were serious about protecting democracy they would have done anything other than focus exclusively on how terrible Trump is for the last four years, because they know that you don't beat a fire by fanning it. They would have deescalated, but instead they escalated, and they absolutely share responsibility for this.

iJohnDoe 2y ago

[flagged]

ImJamal 2y ago
If that is a fear, then maybe don't kill him until he actually has done the thing you fear. Killing somebody before they do the bad thing seems like killing people for thought crimes.
- trealira 2y ago
  Yes, if you're scared of somebody becoming a dictator, obviously you should wait until they actually become a dictator before trying to kill them, or else you're being like the government from Orwell's book 1984. That's just a silly argument.
  - ImJamal 2y ago
    Plenty of people think Biden is a dictator. Plenty of people thought Obama and Bush were dictators. Killing people before they actually become a dictator would mean every president for the last several decades would be assassinated.
    - trealira 2y ago
      The answer should then be to get a better judgement of who is likely to become dictator, not to say "wait until they become dictator first." Like, if you really think they're going to be dictator, it would be best to stop them before they become one; it's harder to oppose a dictator once they fully control the government. It's for that reason that people say they would go back in time to kill Hitler. That's why I'm calling your argument silly.
      - ImJamal 2y ago
        Plenty of people say we should glass Gaza to kill all the terrorists as well. Killing people who haven't done anything yet is wrong.

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

PicassoCTs 2y ago

>"..and fight another battle of ideas in 4 years" The assassination target promised loudly and repeatedly, it would not adhere to that. This a vote for him would be the last vote. Guy may as well have be another https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georg_Elser https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georg_Elser if trump gets to power against the mummified establishment figure.

ElectronCharge 2y ago
You are misinformed.

JamesAdir 2y ago

I know it sounds awful, but I blame the media. If you looked at some of the leading liberal newspapers in America, the minutes and hours after the shooting, you could see how they try to minimize the event, instead of reporting it truthfully.

mistermann 2y ago

> and fight another battle of ideas in 4 years". Someone should shoot "democracy" itself. It's 2024, why are we still driving a political system with training wheels that always takes us to places other than where 90%+ of people want to go? Could it maybe be in part because we are immersed in pro-"democracy" propaganda from the day we are born, and are denied the educational curriculum (set by "democracy") that would give us the tools to think and engage in discourse at a level that would allow us to realize it, or at least consider the idea without everyone losing their cool? Now, sticking with convention: has anyone any epistemically unsound memorized memes and catch phrases for me, to "prove" "democracy" is the ~best we can do, and that ideas like replacing it with a more sophisticated, non-deceptive implementation shan't be discussed among "the adults at the table"? Inb4 "this isn't what HN is for". Protip, fellow Humans: it is possible to think your way out of this simulation we are in, at least substantially (at which point you can rest, regroup, and plan for the next stage of ascent). And it isn't even very hard. It is little more than doing just what we Humans have proven ourselves excellent at, most of the time: 1. Identify a challenge. 2. Solve it. Heck, this problem is actually mostly far more trivial[2] than things we do every day without thinking twice about it. It's mostly just not on our radar, and heavily psychologically protected territory[1]. But religion was this way once also, and science handed it an ass whooping, didn't it? [1] Simple experiments can be run on social media or IRL to demonstrate this: specific prompts will produce highly predictable responses. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Normal_distribution https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Normal_distribution https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Large_language_model https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Large_language_model [2] Irony noted lol

Yawrehto 2y ago

>How the hell did we get here?...Truly sad that we've descended to this level. By the way, sorry that this comment is so long. This level of violence isn't new. This has never been new. There's always been stuff like this. Yes, today's era of political polarization is bad, but the US seems to go through cycles of great polarization and regrettably frequent violence followed by fairly calm periods - at least by one metric (e.g, by 'civil wars' 1860-65 was the worst, but if you measured by violent labor strikes the late 1800s-early 1900s were). Thus you get the American Revolution, then a period of relative calm, then the years leading up to the Civil War and the Civil War itself. Then a period of relative quiet, followed by the much smaller strikes, which often turned violent, as well as pogroms against blacks. Then relative quiet, then Vietnam, Civil Rights, etc. Summary of the data following: Proceeding in fifty-year intervals back from 2020-July 13,2024, ending at 1770-July 13, 1774, this era placed #2 in civil unrest, but #4 out of 6 - ie, below average - in a broader category, counting coups, massacres, civil unrest, rebellions, worker deaths due to labor disputes, and racial violence. For a sense of the persistence of it, look at Wikipedia's page[1]. In fact, if anything, it seems to be slowing down; Wikipedia (thus far) lists 17 incidents from 2020-2024 (inclusive). Scrolling 50, 100, 150, 200, etc. years back shows the following: 50 years ago [1970-July 13,1974]: 28 (!) 100 years ago [1920-July 13,1924]: 9. 150 years ago [1870-July 13,1874]: 10. Again, possibly an underestimate. 200 years ago [1820-July 13,1824]: 0. This is almost certainly an underestimate, but it's how many Wikipedia lists. 250 years ago [1770-July 13, 1774]: 5[2] So, we're the second-highest. However, Wikipedia also helpfully has lists of coup attempts, massacres, etc. So! [Note that this includes things that partially include that time period, e.g., the American Revolution, and larger things, e.g., the Black Panthers. This is from Wikipedia; you can edit it if you want. The version I'm using is accurate as of when I'm writing this] Combined number of coups[3], massacres[4], civil unrest[1][2], rebellions[5], worker deaths "from labor disputes"[counts incidents, not individual deaths] [6], and racial violence[7] [may have some double counting], moving in 50 year intervals back from 2020-July 13,2024: 2020-July 13,2024: Coup attempts: 2, massacres: 3, civil unrest: 17, rebellions: 2, worker deaths: 0, racial violence: 1 [it lumps police brutality together; you're welcome to object]. Total: 25. 1970-July 13,1974: coups: 0, massacres: 1, civil unrest: 28, rebellions: 5, worker deaths: 0, racial violence: 15. Total: 49. 1920-July 13,1924: Coups: 0, Massacres: 6, Civil unrest: 9, rebellions: 1 [Coal Wars], worker deaths: 14, racial violence: 7 [doesn't count KKK as overarching thing]. Total: 37 1870-July 13,1874: Coups: 1 [state], Massacres: 3, Civil unrest: 10, rebellions: 0, worker deaths: 1, racial violence: 12, Total: 27 1820-July 13,1824: Coups: 0, Massacres: 0, Civil unrest: 0 [somehow], rebellions: 0, worker deaths: 0, racial violence: 1, not including slavery. Total: 1 1770-July 13,1774: Coups: 0, Massacres: 1, Civil unrest: 5, rebellions: 2 [includes American revolution], worker deaths: 0, racial violence: 0, not counting slavery. Total: 8. So we come in at position #4 out of 6. A reasonable argument could be made that we're actually BELOW average currently. [1] en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_incidents_of_civil_unrest_in_the_United_States. [2] en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_incidents_of_civil_unrest_in_Colonial_North_America [3] en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_coups_and_coup_attempts_by_country#United_States [this counts state-level attempts] [4] en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_massacres_in_the_United_States. Erratic about which mass shootings it includes. [5] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_rebellions_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_rebellions_in_the_Unit... [6] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_worker_deaths_in_United_States_labor_disputes https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_worker_deaths_in_Unite... [7] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_racial_violence_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_racial_violence_in_the_Un...

zarathustreal 2y ago

Those are the stated rules, let’s be clear about that. The actual rules are that there are no rules. Painting an election by popular vote as a “battle of ideas” is falling into the all-too-common trap of thinking that we are rational agents. I can’t even begin to expand on how incorrect that is. Even a little bit of candid consideration would uncover the truth of this. Political ads aren’t logical arguments. They’re emotional appeals. Hell, “he should be in charge because he’s most popular” is itself an ad populum argument. It’s nonsense to begin with.

tibbydudeza 2y ago

It eerily reminds me of the dialogue scene from that recent movie. Journalists: We are Americans. Soldier: What kind of American are you ???.

shrimp_emoji 2y ago
That was an edgy trailer cut. In the movie, he clarified "South American, Central American...?" He wanted to know if they were from the U.S. and kill them if they weren't. (That's why he only shot the two Asians.)
trealira 2y ago
Sorry, what movie is this? I don't watch many movies.
- c0brac0bra 2y ago
  You're not missing anything.
- thirdsun 2y ago
  Civil War (2024)
  - trealira 2y ago
    Thanks!

remarkEon 2y ago

>How the hell did we get here? Since 2016 about half the country has been fed a steady stream of rhetoric that seeks to define Trump as a literal - not figurative or metaphorical - existential threat to "our democracy". A Hitler 2.0 or worse, and the mark of Fascism finally coming to the United States. If you take those arguments at face value, and really and truly believe they are true, then it is unsurprising that someone took a shot at "New Hitler". Because why wouldn't someone do that if it was true? Of course it isn't true, and even the people who say this stuff don't believe it[1]. [1] https://x.com/Timodc/status/1811136469911711877 https://x.com/Timodc/status/1811136469911711877

deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
mrguyorama 2y ago
If you think "threat to our democracy" rhetoric started "from the left" in 2016, you should go lookup what Fox News has been saying for decades. War on christmas? War on Christianity? Obama isn't even a real american so he is an illegitimate president? "They're coming for our children"? Christ that one regularly gets drag story time cleared out due to violent threats. How dare someone read a book to a child while wearing a dress. Or maybe you forget the decades of bombing abortion clinics? You know we USED to have violent hard left organizations like the Black Panthers and Weather Underground. Now the right has to wave vaguely at "auntie fa", a "group" as real as "anonymous".
- remarkEon 2y ago
  Honestly? I think the difference here is that Bill O'Reilly saying a bunch of BS on his TV show is pretty starkly different from the "paper of record" and the sitting President telling voters that "if this other guy wins the election democracy ends". You can see the difference in authority of voice here, right? That's a rhetorical framing that justifies a lot of extreme action. Arguably, it justifies preventing Trump from assuming office if he wins again in November. Is this what people really believe? I don't think so, because if it was people in government would've celebrated the assassination attempt.

poikroequ 2y ago

Did you not see the insurrection on the capital just a few years ago? People chanting Hang Mike Pence? How about the person who blew up a small part of downtown Nashville one Christmas morning because lizard people? There's lots of lunatics out there, plenty to go around.

incomingpain 2y ago

>How the hell did we get here? Lets go backwards. Messaging from the democrat side has been that trump is a threat to democracy, he's a fascist nazi, etc etc. You've seen the vilification. Days prior Biden literally said to put Trump in the bullseye and 'elimination' is necessary. Biden has withdrawn all these ads. https://www.visualcapitalist.com/the-polarization-of-politics-in-america/ https://www.visualcapitalist.com/the-polarization-of-politic... Political polarization is primarily derived from the democrat side. Echo chambers are mostly democrat sided. Reddit for example having banned r/thedonald for example. Each side now lives separately and aren't talking to each other except to dunk on each other's dumbest candidates. John Stewart's fault. The fix here has to come from the democrat side, end the identity politics, and start preaching unity, democracy, and everyone is on the same team. It does seem that they have shifted their messaging, but to change your messaging strategy 3 months before the election is rather election ending.

AnimalMuppet 2y ago
> Political polarization is primarily derived from the democrat side. Say what? (Even the article you cite does not support your claim.) > Echo chambers are mostly democrat sided. Double what? There is plenty of villification coming from Trump and the right. (Read his speeches.) There is plenty of violent rhetoric on the right. There is a big echo chamber on the right. If you don't see it, maybe you're in an echo chamber?
trealira 2y ago
> Political polarization is primarily derived from the democrat side. You're really going to say that, while Trump sends out campaign emails like this? > BIDEN'S DAY OF RECKONING IS COMING > He tried to publicly torture and humiliate me ... BUT HE FAILED. > He tried to raid my home and take me out with deadly force... BUT HE FAILED. > He tried to bury me with so many witch hunts that I'd be forced to quit... BUT HE FAILED. > STAND WITH TRUMP > 34 RIGGED FELONY CONVICTIONS calls for an unprecedented response. > And if our response to his tyrannical regime isn't MASSIVE, Biden will move onto his next target: YOU! > THEY WANT TO SENTENCE ME TO DEATH! > You know they’d do it if they could, but Crooked Joe’s team of lowlifes and radical left thugs will settle for a LIFE SENTENCE. ... > Remember, it’s not me they’re after… > THEY’RE AFTER YOU - I’M JUST STANDING IN THEIR WAY! > But with your support, > I’ll NEVER give up. > I’LL NEVER SURRENDER! ... > Your support is the only thing standing between the Biden regime and their ultimate goal of DESTROYING AMERICA ONCE AND FOR ALL. This sort of rhetoric is standard. Seems like everyone has just forgotten about it.

winternett 2y ago

I don't know if we can honestly ask how did we get here... January 6th was just one of many shining beacons to let us know that this issue was a powder keg. Social Media has added a layer of deep disinformation & divisive ideological bubbles that are all largely going unchecked as well, where anyone can be anyone, and where it can be quite profitable for personalities to become incendiary... We're really not holding anyone, nor the bodies managing social media and news media accountable for their actions at all, which opens the doors to sensationalism, and even to embellishment on issues which are normally meant to be commonplace and handled professionally. I think everyone has had fair warning that the rhetoric would lead to more drama, and the country has ignored it in a quest to line pockets. Politics are meant to be boring, and in order to serve Democracy, it simply can't ignore and even encroach on basic rights of others it represents. We have gone too far in political extremes, and this is the end result, slowly getting worse over time. It's clear that we need to stop making personal servants celebrities, and to stop watching and pushing politics as if it's a TV drama or Football game, otherwise it's only going to get worse... That being said, there is a lot more organization and agendas involved in politics now than in the past. Technology now is widely being used against everyone to achieve and monitor goals and progress in capturing profit... Sometimes as tech insiders, we have to be careful about what we implement and even say "no" as a response to being asked to do things that undermine people and the ethical balance of the world. Profiting off of tech is not good if it makes the world we all live in deeply unstable. There's no castle, even in Maui, that anyone can build to survive political and economic collapse of the country nor the world. There is a better way to do all of this.

hulitu 2y ago

> How the hell did we get here? Too many guns ? Too much interference of the CIA ? > At a fundamental level, we seem to have lost our sense of what Democracy means. What means democracy ? Rich people buying politicians to promote laws which will make them richer ? A bunch of "citizens" sending other "citizens" to die "for their country" so some assholes can increase profits ?

stefantalpalaru 2y ago

[dead]

matrix87 2y ago

> Unless this is a lone, unstable individual, it is more evidence that our system needs more balance. When is it ever not? A lot easier to believe than a bunch of handwavey "across the aisle" garbage