WaPo Gets All Hand-Wringy Because People Are Suggesting Trump Needs To Be Assassinated
from the humor-is-legal-again? dept
Let’s make one thing clear before I start digging into the Washington Post firing up its teapot-based Tempest Generator: I do not support the assassination of Donald Trump. I am understandably impatient with the “let nature take its course” progression we’ve observed so far, but I would not encourage anyone to expedite this process in bullet form.
That being said, what the fuck is the Washington Post even doing here?
Peyton Vanest was fuming about President Donald Trump when he grabbed his phone and hit record. “Somebody should,” he declared, pausing for dramatic effect. “Somebody should, you know?”
“If somebody knew what needed to be done, that person should probably just do it …” the 27-year-old progressive influencer continued, conspicuously not defining “it.”
[…]
Vanest’s vague plea — posted 18 days before the third apparent attempt on Trump’s life in less than two years — is part of a social media trend that has twisted the idea of a presidential assassination into a morbid joke.
The “vague plea” that opens this (is it an op-ed or what is it exactly?) article by the Washington Post gathered “3.2 million views.” The way these paragraphs flow together invite an inference that cannot plausibly be made: that people fucking around on the internet somehow led to the shooting (mostly of the shooter) at the White House Correspondents Dinner.
So does this paragraph, which does little more than perform a bit of bias confirmation:
Know Your Meme found that interest in the “Somebody should do it” trend spiked after an armed man’s thwarted attack last month at the White House correspondents’ dinner in Washington, where Trump was scheduled to speak.
Was it actually a “trend?” Or did it start looking like a trend because interest “spiked” following this attempted attack? The article really wants the cart to proceed the horse but the data says the cart is just where it should be: a trailing interest indicator obviously provoked by the actions of “somebody” who may or may not have intended to “do it.”
Having reached a conclusion, WaPo writers Danielle Paquette and Joseph Woodrow Cox apparently went in search of evidence to support it. There’s no shortage of “experts” willing to state that the internet (or video games or music or phone use or processed sugars) causes violence, even when they’re doing nothing more than observing correlations.
Researchers who study how violence multiplies told The Washington Post they are concerned about the posts’ reach and impact.
The article then goes on to quote a single researcher — Tim Weninger of Notre Dame — who says he’s “never seen” anything quite like this. It follows that up with comments from six internet randos, all but one of which said they don’t seriously want anyone to kill Trump, even if they did post something akin to “someone should do it.” (Several paragraphs later, it adds another researcher, who only expresses a broader concern about the public’s embrace of Luigi Mangione and some “celebrations” of Charlie Kirk’s murder.)
As ridiculous as this whole article is, it’s nothing compared to wet-brained word salad delivered by a Trump administration spokesperson:
“Anyone who engages in or endorses political violence or assassination culture must be condemned in the harshest terms possible,” said White House spokesman Davis Ingle. “They should also immediately seek psychiatric help to treat their severe and debilitating case of Trump Derangement Syndrome that has warped their brains and made them sick in the head.”
A. The party engaging in the most political violence is the Trump administration. Trump uses a lot of violent rhetoric. So do his political appointees. And let’s not forget that Trump supporters are, to date, the only people to express their disagreement with presidential election results by violently invading the US Capitol building for the sole purpose of preventing the election results from being certified. During this insurrection attempt, law enforcement officers were assaulted and people were killed. That’s reality. What’s happening on the internet is nothing compared to this violent assault on the very concept of democracy.
B. GTFO with this “Trump Derangement Syndrome.” Psychiatrists can’t help people work their way through a stupid phrase the GOP has been using for the past few years because they can’t actually produce a coherent counterargument.
C. So what. We’re looking at a few viral posts made by people whose online reach far exceeds their ability to make anything happen. Compare that with actual politicians with an enormous amount of power and an army of MAGA faithful at their disposal:
U.S. elected officials have waded as well into the digital muck. Then–Rep. Paul A. Gosar (R-Arizona) was censured for posting an animated video in November 2021 that depicted him appearing to kill Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-New York) and swinging two swords at Joe Biden. (“Everyone needs to relax,” Gosar’s then-digital director, Jessica Lycos, said at the time in a statement defending the post.) Trump shared a video in March 2024 that featured an illustration of then-President Joe Biden with his hands and feet tied. (“That picture was on the back of a pickup truck that was traveling down the highway,” Steven Cheung, now a White House spokesman, told The Post back then, adding that Democrats and “crazed lunatics” have called for “despicable violence” against Trump.)
Fuck off with that “as well” shit. Officials never need to “wade into the muck.” These Republicans do it because they want to. And they do it to provoke exactly the reactions they get when they do it. Yeah, they’re also doing it for the clicks, but they have the force and power of the government behind them, which makes these a bit less easy to laugh off as just some off-target meme-making by people who aren’t quite the digital natives they imagine themselves to be.
At the end of it all, here’s what this “someone should do it” posting actually represents: the feeling that nothing works the way it’s supposed to because this administration has chosen to destroy pretty much everything that actually makes America great.
“Are you advocating that someone should take a gun and shoot this person in the head? ‘No’ is the answer to that question,” Mark said. “But at the same time, we’re going to joke about this, and we’re going to say this stuff, because we’re all feeling the most desperate and desolate that we ever have.”
That’s the ugly truth. This nation is being run by thugs and bullies. Violence is the only language they know. To get through to them, sometimes you have to speak their language. Not many people are capable of doing that. Sooner or later, though, “someone” will.
Filed Under: cowardice, free speech, trump administration, whataboutism


Comments on “WaPo Gets All Hand-Wringy Because People Are Suggesting Trump Needs To Be Assassinated”
Remember when fox news put cross hairs on Obama’s face and there was 8 years of “this is what the second amendment is for”
Re:
Will no one rid me of this turbulent political party and it’s ideological variants worldwide (even if they are politically, religiously, or economically opposed to one another)?
Re: Re:
You know, democrats outnumber republicans 2 to 1 nationally, but for some strange reason republicans on average get a 2.14 to .86 benefit in how their votes are counted for the presidential election due to the electoral college.
And that’s not counting how nearly every proven attempt at voter fraud has been committed by republican voters.
Re:
Yes, I remember. It’s part of why I’ve become solidly anti-‘freedom of speech’ in fact.
Won’t someone rid us of this troublesome President?
(Actually, then we’d get “President Vance”, which I’m not sure would be much of an improvement, and if after him, then you’d get “President ‘my son watches me jerk off’ Johnson”.)
Re:
I would much prefer President Vance if only because no one, not even the right wing personality cult, seems to give him the time of day. The amount of further damage he could cause to the republic is minimal.
Re: Re:
Well, he seems to kill people or ruin deals wherever he goes, so I’m not sure it would be a good idea for him to be in charge of the entire country.
Re: Re: Re:
That graphic of Biden in the back of a pickup is just a variation of an old graphic of a young woman tied up in the back of a pickup. They can’t even be original.
Re: Re: Re:2
In fairness to the creativity, everyone loves a good meme. In fairness to the image… that one is not a good meme.
My entire 44 years on this earth, Republicans been waving their guns at us nonstop, and it’s treated as normal. WaPo can fucking die mad.
Trump: pushes insurrection in 2012, 2016, 2020, 2024, and 2026, if not more
Progressives: joke about assassination once
Trump: WHAT HOW DARE YOU
Re:
The proper response there is escalation, continue to casually joke about it. There have already been ‘shoot a liberal/Democrat/rapper’ bumper stickers for decades. Getting the youngest generation to meme about 86ing rich/conservative people is honestly what needs to happen until the Gilded Age ends.
Fat Donnie
“but I would not encourage anyone to expedite this process in bullet form.”
Poison?
Strangulation?
Stabbing?
Re:
impeachment
Re:
JD Vance?
Re: Re:
Impeach him too. I have no doubt he has done something illegal since joining trump. And even if they dont impeach him, I dont see him being able to get congress to blindly follow whatever agenda he puts forward.
Re:
A breaking on the wheel would be suitable, I think.
Re: Re:
Nah, confiscate his families ill gotten wealth. Sentence him to actual prison for his numerous crimes (gen-pop) with the rest of his family. And let nature take it’s course. It would be the worst way for him, Broke, Alone, Imprisoned, and most importantly No attention.
The primary cause of people's willingness to discuss assassinating Trump....
….is surely Trump’s actions?
Occam’s Razor, and all that.
It’s been more than the past few years. They’ve been using it so long it started out as “Bush Derangement Syndrome“.
Re:
Fun fact: The “newspaper” that published that opinion piece is 100% owned by the Mormon church.
Every right-wing accusation is a confession.
Im going to bomb the president
dont come to my house, cause its booby trapped with ezplosives at all entrances
I’m genuinely surprised there haven’t been more attempts.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Suggesting the president should be assassinated is really bad, actually.
Democrats are the party of violence. You are SO violent, you’re starting to suggest it’s strange that people are saying you shouldn’t be violent.
Re:
You said this last week too, and I pointed out a long list of studies showing that it’s the far right that is way more violent. And you disappeared.
Not going to dig the entire thing out again, so here are just a few. You’ll (of course) lie and dissemble and dismiss rather than taking ownership of the fact that EVERY SINGLE STUDY shows that the far right is way more violent.
National Institute on Justice study: “Since 1990, far-right extremists have committed far more ideologically motivated homicides than far-left or radical Islamist extremists, including 227 events that took more than 520 lives. In this same period, far-left extremists committed 42 ideologically motivated attacks that took 78 lives”
UMD Criminology & Criminal Justice study: “Consistent with findings at the U.S. level, attacks by left-wing extremists are 45% less likely to result in fatalities when compared to attacks by right-wing extremists.”
Criminology, Criminal Justice, Law & Society study: “Far-left homicide incidents accounted for 15.6% of these homicide events, and far-right homicides accounted for 84.4%.”
Princeton study: “In short, our individual-level examination found that among radicalized individuals in the United States, those adhering to a left-wing ideology were markedly less likely to engage in violent ideologically motivated acts when compared to right-wing individuals.”
Basically every single damn study says you’re full of shit (and some of those look at multiple other studies as well).
Just face it: either you are deliberately lying, or people are lying to you and you’re believing the lies. You might want to examine why.
Re: Re:
Gooogle AI argues for 4 left wing presidents successfully assassinated and 4 right wing presidents, funnily enough both lists include Abraham Lincoln as a moderate republican. I would argue that is a much better indicator then studies that probably have a backing of PR. If you had a 100 presidents assinated then you could argue say 51 vs 49 or who was really left or right when left and right have little meaning in that historical context
Its USA so discussing assignation is covered by the 1st amendment, but nutters will read it and think about it regardless and the more discussion, the more its in there head.
Ultimately assassination is the ultimate hecklers veto and not something that a civilised country can allow to continue as part of its path unless you are happy for others to believe your country is not a civilised 1st world country.
Re: Re: Re:
…hwat
Re: Re: Re:
Lemme stop you there… Google AI is not a proper research tool and this isn’t an obscure topic. You can just read the Wikipedia entry.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_presidential_assassination_attempts_and_plots
Lincoln, Garfield, McKinley, and Kennedy are the only assassinated presidents. That’s 4, not 8. Only Kennedy was killed in the last 100 years. No US presidents have ever been left wing. Eugene V. Debs never had a chance at getting elected.
But it is useful to see the threats to recent presidents. Trump had a few incidents, but that speaks more to failures of his security detail rather than a greater amount of violence “from the left,” especially considering not every suspect is a leftist. But look at Obama’s and Biden’s lists. People are forgetting or never heard about these and pretending like them getting shut down before an actual attempt means they never happened.
Re: Re: Re:2
Wikipedia is also biased trash. (I mean yes there 4 assassinations but don’t cite it, damn)
Re: Re: Re:3
It’s a better citation than google AI.
Re: Re: Re:3
I wouldn’t cite Wikipedia for academic research, but it’s good enough for a summary of a topic about which you know little or nothing. The key is to look at the citations and read the sources if you actually want to understand the topic better.
As for bias, sure, but every human publication is biased. Trash? Depends on the editor and the article.
Re: Re: Re:3
AC, you cited a bias machine.
Is Wikipedia biased? Well yes. But it’s biased in the sense that every editor brings with them a view of the world and an internal understanding of what topics are important.
It’s also biased towards what has been actually researched and documented. If something incorrect is on Wikipedia, then it means further reasearch on the topic needs to be published so the article can be updated.
I don’t think those are bad biases to have
Re: Re: Re:
Care to name these left wing presidents? From a European perspective, I’m not sure you ever had any that weren’t center right, you guys screamed socialist and lost your damn minds over a centrist like Obama proposing a healthcare plan that was created by a right wing think-tank to try and prevent genuine universal healthcare.
Re: Re:
I will next week, too. Because it is true.
There’s only a few, and they’ve ALL been debunked.
Again, I don’t “disappear”, your website is just very old, incredibly shitty, and you allow a heckler’s veto, and I just get tired of checking through the replies for your gaslighting.
These studies all pull a grab bag of tricks like counting Islamists as “right wing” (even tho they’re aligned with the left), Excluding 9/11 or other large terror attacks (no reason to do that), definitionally counting all anti-semitic violence as right wing (lol, leftists REALLY hate the Jews right now, not a little bit cuz of the Islamic alliance), just definitionally counting all racial violence as right-wing (completely untrue), counting all prison riots (most are probably unpolitical) as rightwing, etc., etc., etc. Jesus wept, if they cover the 70s they probably count the Weather underground as Right-wing.
I can say “they all pull a grab bag” because most of them use the same open-source data that has been egregiously cooked.
They are ALL trash. It turns out if you just lie about what words mean the data can mean whatever you want it to.
Were you gaslit by this purposefully manipulated data, or are you aware and just using them to lie?
https://www.businessinsider.com/adl-extremism-ultraright-wing-violence-statistics-anti-defamation-league-2020-4
https://komonews.com/news/nation-world/reports-on-political-violence-may-favor-liberals-and-inflate-right-wing-numbers-antidefamation-league-adl-reporting-white-supremacist-gang-school
https://www.aei.org/op-eds/the-shoddy-efforts-to-pin-political-violence-on-the-right/
You’re ignorant or a liar, and at some point I stopped caring which.
Re: Re: Re:
My goodness, you truly are our dumbest troll. Do you just repeat talking points without ever investigating?
None of the studies I posted were based on the ADL’s numbers, and I agree that I wouldn’t trust the ADL’s numbers either (an organization I have regularly criticized). On top of that, all of the studies do not include Islamic terrorism as right wing. Indeed, most of them break it out as an entirely separate category.
You can’t even respond to the actual evidence because it proves you’re full of shit, so you rush to find a weak and obviously fake strawman to knock over.
You remain so fucking pathetic.
Re: Re: Re:2
It’s kind of hilarious how he keeps trying to align the 9/11 terrorists with “leftism” as a way to counteract, say, my continual citing of the Oklahoma City bombing as a right-wing domestic terror attack.
Re: Re: Re:3
Lol, High Retard Cakeboy hasn’t heard of the Red-green alliance (commies with Islamists, like the flags, not commies with enviros (both are retarded)) It’s been going on for decades (was behind the Iranian revolution, in fact) and has only been getting stronger lately.
It’s not JUST ignorant youths on campus being commies and yelling “Free Palestine!” (by which they mean wiping out Israel and killing all the Jews), it’s been an official thing for a long, long time.
Islamists are expressly tied to leftism. Ironic since they hate the gays and all, but it’s not like leftist ideologies have to make sense.
Can you try to be less ignorant in public, next time?
Re: Re: Re:4
As I’ve pointed out before, Islam is not tied to any one political alignment. If that were true, you’d have to claim that Christianity is expressly tied to conservatism, since some of the most powerful Christians in the United States are conservative and the Catholic Church is a massive force for religious conservatism around the world.
I know you desperately want al-Qaeda to be “leftist” because it would (A) give you an excuse to ignore right-wing violence and (B) justify the kind of holy war against Muslims that Christian nationalists like you want to end with nukes, but it’s just not true. And no amount of bullshit from you will ever convince me that religious fundamentalists who force women to dress in full-body coverings and practically treat rape as a rite of passage for a man would ever be aligned with actual leftists. Your entire argument boils down to “al-Qaeda is further left than MLK because some college kids don’t want Israel to keep bombing Gaza”, and you really think that’s going to work on anyone, let alone me?
Re: Re: Re:4
What communists? Who the hell are you talking about? Get your prostate checked, grandpa. McCarthy isn’t in office and the wall is down and your John Birch Society membership card has withered to dust.
You’re just out here imagining enemies and conflating anyone you disagree with (which is also one of your common accusation-confessions).
“Being commies” is a weird phrase. Do you think college students being interested in alternative economic and political systems is like a fundamentalist religion that leads them to becoming terrorists or something? Would you say their 1st Amendment rights aren’t valid?
You keep telling people who they are and what they mean as if you understand everyone else while simultaneously demonstrating your ignorance of even your own ideology.
Did you know some of those college students are Jewish? Are they advocating for their own annihilation, or does that fact wrinkle your brain too much because every situation must be black and white and simpler than a Playskool toy for you? You’re the “see no evil” monkeys when nuance shows up.
“Trust me, my propaganda sources told me it’s true!”
Ah yes, the famous right wing conservative religious fundamentalist authoritarians who dictate structured hierarchical systems on a society are notoriously going to raves with anti-authoritarian egalitarian leftist LGBTQ feminists who tend to break atheist and agnostic. They take glowing vodka shots together while plotting the downfall of western civilization! Dogs and cats living together! Mass hysteria!
Do you check for communists and Islamists under your bed every night before you go to sleep?
I love that you walked straight into that wall and the cognitive dissonance didn’t do a damn thing to encourage critical thought. You have been trained so well to reject anything that doesn’t align with your propaganda. You’re a true believer! That’s not a compliment. You’re one of those dumbfucks who wastes his life gleefully memorizing the shadows on the wall and you never question who’s projecting them and for what benefit.
I wouldn’t suggest that you try. You might hurt yourself thinking too hard.
Re: Re: Re:5
I imagine he believes “exposure” to the tenets of those alternative systems is like being indoctrinated into a religion and nothing short of wholesale rejection and a refusal to hear any more about those systems is akin to being baptised. That becomes doubly hilarious when you consider he’s the kind of guy who would likely tell other people about “diversity of thought” and how people need exposure to “alternative viewpoints” from assholes like Nick Fuentes in the hopes that such exposure will indoctrinate people into white nationalism.
Re: Re: Re:4
Please, feel free to list the left wing policies promoted by those pushing for Islamic rule and show the class how those ‘left wing policies’ are applied in the Middle Eastern countries currently living under Sharia law. Saudi Arabia doesn’t seem like a left wing utopia to anyone with eyes, and they had an awful lot to do with Al Qaeda, and the 9\11 terror attacks, with multiple members of their ruling class and the Bin Laden family protected by -checks notes- noted leftist and Republican President George W. Bush.
Also there’s the whole Reagan and Bush sr. funding, training and arming the people who became Al Qaeda to fight communists in Afghanistan thing, you know, because there’s such a left wing streak in the corporate backed American anti-communist movement.
Re: Re: Re:2
Holy shit you can’t even read.
I didn’t even say they are, but the fact is that they’re using the same pool of (poisoned) public data, and I GUARANTEE you some of ADL’s data is in there, SPLC’s too, with various degrees of laundering. You then throw additional methodological errors on top, tell any story you want to tell, it’s great!
Oh, none of it even started with the same units, metrics or definitions, even within one source, so even better! It can mean whatever you want.
Did you know Catholics who like Latin are NOT actually “right wing extremists?” Both the FBI and SPLC said they were, tho! Turns out you can’t trust how other people define things.
Throwing out debunked studies is considerably worse than throwing out “talking points”, whatever the fuck you think that means.
I did, actually. All this shit is made up and debunked. Since they’re based on the same data (and use a lot of the same tricks) they’re better treated as a class.
Oh, you want me to go through each “study” line by line and debunk them? Lol, no need and pointless. You knew they were trash when you sent them out, If I take the time to knock down one, you’ll just through move on to the next, using the same data relabeled or “contextualized”.
You are either too stupid to realize this or you are willing to spread the lie regardless, and I have stopped caring which, you ignorant retarded clown.
BTW, since you keep accusing me of “disappearing” on your broken 20005 site, this is about where I stop checking back, 6 hours, 12 hrs, a day later. (I think my last comment appeared like 18h later? And you responded immediately. Are you approving these by hand, Mike?)
Re: Re: Re:
Saying “they’ve been debunked” without citing how they were debunked isn’t an argument—it’s an assertion that can be ignored.
But you do, though. As soon as you’re confronted with facts you can’t handwave away with “but Trump said the opposite so it must be true” or “BUT DEMONCRATS!!!1!1”, you vanish instead of trying to actually support your arguments.
No. No, they are not. Christians in the United States aren’t a political monolith (much to the consternation of conservative Christians who want to turn the country into a theocratic autocracy), and Muslims are the same. You want to align a group like al-Qaeda with “leftists”, but al-Qaeda’s politics and policies (especially the ones involving women) align with extreme right-wing ideologies like the ones that led right-wingers to bomb abortion clinics. Trying to foist Islamic extremism onto “leftists” so you don’t have to deal with reality is a Grand Canyon–sized dose of copium.
Care to cite where the study did that?
That you conflate Jewish people as one and the same with the Israeli government is far more antisemitic than someone saying “the Israeli government is doing a genocide in Gaza”.
If we’re talking interracial violence, I’d wager that a majority of it isn’t political, but a still-significant part of it does involve racism. If we’re talking intraracial violence, the vast majority of such crime isn’t political at all—and last time I checked, white-on-white crime was a worse “epidemic” than Black-on-Black crime, so don’t even bother playing that card like it’ll win you anything.
The funny thing is, if you look at actual extremist left-wing movements in the United States, most of them are likely focused on the destruction of property rather than the murder of people. To find the political extreme that has more interest in murdering people than in destroying property, you have to look rightward. Or do you think the people chanting “hang Mike Pence” on the 6th of January 2021 were doing it “ironically”?
Kinda like how Trump lies about his poll numbers despite most credible pollsters showing him with an approval rating that, numerically, is a little over twice the age of the underage girls his old pal Jeffrey Epstein trafficked?
Every accusation, a confession.
Re: Re: Re:2
I did, in fact, cite how they had been debunked. I’m sorry you don’t read so good.
Re: Re: Re:3
No. No, you did not.
Re:
You are SO violent, you’re starting to suggest it’s strange that people are saying you shouldn’t be violent.
You should consider the Paradox of Tolerance. It might explain why you’re surprised.
Re:
I haven’t seen a single Democrat lawmaker saying, explicitly or implicitly, that Donald Trump should be murdered. But I’ve seen and heard Trump say or at least imply numerous times that people he dislikes—Democrats, journalists, and people who “betrayed” him somehow—being killed would be a good thing. I didn’t see a single Democrat lawmaker celebrating the death of Charlie Kirk, but I did see Trump celebrating the murder of Rob Reiner and the death of Robert Mueller. I also haven’t seen any left-wing violence in the United States that is even comparable to the biggest right-wing domestic terror incident to have happened in my lifetime (the Oklahoma City bombing).
By the by, since you want to talk so much good shit about Republicans: When asked how much the financial pressures of the average American were motivating him to make a deal with Iran, Trump said “I don’t think about Americans’ financial situation”. (Yes, there is video of him saying it; yes, it is real; yes, his words are placed in context.) And while you might be able to argue that his decree of “I don’t want Iran to have nukes” is more important, the fact that he admitted he doesn’t think about how his war of choice is fucking over Americans says all it needs to say. It’s a bit funny how all he had to do was nothing and the Strait of Hormuz would be open today and the economy wouldn’t be fucked, but people like you having orgasms over what he did in (and to) Venezuela made him think he could do the same in (and to) Iran. Turns out, his whole “bullying his enemies into making a deal even if the deal sucks for him” schtick doesn’t work when those enemies are more than willing to ride out the pain and possibly even fight back.
Re: Re:
It’s not like you’re being clever with these carve outs.
No, you didn’t: you imagining what he COULD have meant doesn’t count, dumbass.
Besides being COMPLETELY off-topic, it’s hilarious you think you have a “gotcha” here, because the Iran war is not about economics, it is about making sure terrorists don’t get a nuke, you fucking retard.
So yeah, we can survive $4 gas for a little while to solve the problem for good, k, thx.
All it says is it’s a dumb fucking question and completely the wrong way to think about it.
You’re fucking shit for brains, seriously.
Re: Re: Re:
I’m not trying to be. No Democrat lawmaker has called for or celebrated violence against their political “enemies” like Donald Trump and the GOP have. If someone like AOC were to be assaulted, I guaran-goddamn-tee the GOP (and especially Donald Trump) would have a field day with all the memes they’d make of her assault. Whether lay people who vote Democrat or Republican do it is irrelevant to me.
Then the same has to go for all the times you’ve imagined Democrat lawmakers saying things where you imagined what they could have meant but didn’t. But you won’t hold yourself to that standard. Which means I don’t have to hold myself to yours.
I mean, it kind of is now, considering the war—oh, are you allowed to call it a war instead of a “special military operation” now?—is directly responsible, via the closing of the Strait of Hormuz, for rising gas prices and the inevitable rise in prices of consumer goods in general that will come from companies having to pass off their pain to consumers whose financial situations Trump said he doesn’t think about.
What really sucks for you is that neither you nor Trump can do the usual dodge by blaming Biden for this. Trump pulled out of the nuclear deal that the U.S. struck with Iran, Trump made the call to attack Iran, and Trump is the one who promised during his campaign to end wars instead of starting them. (Didn’t he say something about ending the Ukraine war on “day one” of his presidency? How’d that work out for him?) You could argue that Biden didn’t attack Iran while he was president, but look what happened when Trump did it: higher gas prices with no end in sight, economic devastation, and poll numbers so low that it would be embarassing to someone with a working sense of shame.
And if people have to decide whether their children eat on a given day, well, how much damage could a little starvation really do to a child?
No, it isn’t. Trump attacked Iran despite a lack of proof that Iran was months, weeks, days, or even hours away from having a nuclear weapon. He caused Iran to close, then take control of, the Strait of Hormuz—an act which has severely fucked with the global economy. If Trump had done nothing militarily and chose to let diplomacy play out without his usual “give me everything or I will fuck you over” negotiating style, it’s entirely possible that Iran would’ve come to a new deal over its nuclear ambitions without causing a global economic crisis. But he attacked Iran instead, and now you’re forced to reckon with the fact that your godking is the one responsible for the results of his decision—after all, he is the POTUS, so you can’t blame this one on Biden or AOC or Jimmy Kimmel. Trump did this shit. And since you love to support Trump by painting him as a godking who never makes a bad decision, you have to deal with him being the one who made this decision. No deflections, no dodges, no way to avoid the truth: Donald Trump chose to attack Iran and his decision has fucked over the average American more than leaving Iran alone ever would have.
Re: Re: Re:2
They literally have not. I called you out the first time, and you didn’t attempt to justify it, so now I KNOW that YOU KNOW they have not. You’re just lying, Masnick style.
I didn’t imagine them (the vast majority) calling literally EVERYONE who disagrees with “Nazi/Fascist”, did I?
What are you supposed to do to “nazis”, you stupid fuck?
Oh, neat, you have completely misunderstood the whole fucking point (mine, Trump’s). It’s not about economics it is about survival.
Did I mention that this is WILDLY off topic? But you can’t help yourself, huh?
Oh, neat, so nvm that no children really starve in the US (but you really want to pretend! In fact “food insecurity” as a new metric is meant to obscure that) does that mean I get to complain about any additional cost from government as starving my children to death I guarantee you taxes raise my cost of living WAY more than $4 gas. Are taxes causing my son to starve to death?
Heck, CA has gas that is several dollars higher than the rest of the country (it’s not just tax, special regs, too). Is CA “starving le children” by that metric?
You say the stupidest shit and you have zero self-awareness about it.
Yeah man, Biden was just going to let them have nukes, while tanking the economy WAY WORSE than $4 gas is.
The JCPOA was worse than nothing. It DID NOTHING to stop Iran from getting nukes, and gave Iran a shit ton of money. Money…..which a lot of it was funneled to Hamas to do Oct 7. Ben Rhoades has literal blood on his hands.
You are an ignorant fuck. $4 gas for a few months is important but ultimately just an inconvenience. If Iran got nukes they WOULD have snuck a nuke into a US city.
Re: Re: Re:3
Donald Trump literally celebrated the deaths of Robert Mueller and Rob Reiner, two people who were aligned against him politically that he saw as his enemies. Even Fox News would tell you that much.
Actually, you did.
“Vote for them” seems to be the answer you’d go with…
But it’s also about economics and how Trump has fucked over the global economy—first with his tariffs, then with his decision to wage a war against Iran that closed the Strait of Hormuz.
It’s kind of a funny thing, in the “holy shit this is insane” sort of way: Trump inherited a decent economy from Biden, and if he’d sat back and let career civil servants who knew what they were doing handle economic issues while he posted dumb bullshit on social media, the economy probably would’ve done much better under Trump than it’s doing right now and he could be taking credit for it. But no, that dumbass decided to wage a trade war with the world, then start a military war that closed off a particularly important shipping route and fucked over the global economy as a result.
You can’t even really use “BUT BIDEN” as an excuse any more. If Trump didn’t purge Biden appointees out of the government, he at least made sure they wouldn’t have any real power in his regime. And Biden’s been out of office for sixteen months—long enough that anything he could have done at the end of his term would and could be undone by Trump’s own policies. What galls you about people “whining” about affordability and the economy is that you can’t explain it away by whining about Biden and expect anyone but other MAGA acolytes to take you seriously. Trump owns the economy now; his decisions to tariff half the world and bomb Iran are more directly responsible for the state of the U.S. economy right now than Biden’s actions as president ever were.
All he had to do was nothing. He couldn’t even do that because he wanted credit for the economy. So please, don’t deny him that credit now.
Re: Re: Re:
Numerous political threats to individual States, including IN, TX, GE, SC, NC, ND, LA, OK etc… To gerrymander their maps “Or Else” (yes an actual quote). His infantile attempts at bullying our (former) international allies. His attempts to threaten Zelensky into accepting that Putin can keep the parts of Ukraine he invaded. The frankly racist remarks against South Africa. Including some dog-whistles quoted directly from Hitler. None of these things are imagined, they were directly attributed to tRump. (not even mentioning more recent threats against Iran)
Threats Against Democrats: Trump has aimed threats at Democratic members of Congress, suggesting they should be “arrested and put on trial” for “seditious behavior” after they encouraged military members to refuse illegal orders.
He has previously and repeatedly threatened to use the National Guard or the U.S. military to disrupt protests and manage cities, aiming these comments at major cities like Washington, D.C., Chicago, and New York. In direct violation of the Posse Comitatus act.
Donald Trump has displayed a troubling pattern of attacking judges and the courts for rulings he disagrees with — a pattern that began during his presidential campaign (and even before), and has continued into his presidency.
And the list goes on.
Re: Re: Re:2
And before he was president, he called for the death penalty in the case of the Central Park Five, who were later exonerated of the crime for which Trump wanted them executed (and who never received an apology from Trump, who still proclaims their guilt despite factual scientific evidence proving their innocence).
Re: Re: Re:3
If I listed everything, we’d be here all week. Frankly I don’t have the time. So a few moments of googling the most nascent threats is what you’ve got.
Re: Re: Re:3
Yes….cuz wanting the death penalty for horrific murder (regardless of whether they got the right perps, or not) is TOTALLY the same as wishing extra-judicial violence on your political enemies, amiright?
No, no it isn’t, you stupid fuck.
Re: Re: Re:4
Does…does anyone want to tell him?
Re: Re: Re:5
I wouldn’t bother, he’s too stupid to care.
Re: Re: Re:5
Holy fuck, this one is just gobsmackingly stupid! Sure, it’s evil, but that’s expected, but the stupid on this one burns more than usual.
Re: Re: Re:4
Good to know that presumption of innocence means literally nothing to you. Better that a hundred innocent people get punished than one guilty person go free, am I right?
Re: Re: Re:2
I’m aware it’s an actual quote. What exactly do you think “or else” is, you stupid fuck? Maybe….primary them, like he did in Indiana, just last week?
You losers have nothing.
Re:
Perennial reminder that Democrats, liberals, leftists, non-partisan, and whatever other terms you conflate are not all the same thing.
Nothing like telling someone who they are when you can’t even identify who you’re talking about.
8647
Sic semper tyrannis
Re:
Do you ever think about the Secret Service and FBI suits who have to check under the Brooklyn Bridge every week?
Akshually
since everybody knows that Trump is a RINO In Name Only, and rhino’s nose-horns are allegedly an aphrodisiac, I’m surprised that a lot more of his Billionaire Epstein Class haven’t taken him out, for that “loving feeling” which disappears under the stress of growing older while still not being taken out oneself. While I’ve been expecting his MAGAts to stop feeding the hand that bites them and bite back.
Re:
Republican In Name Only In Name Only? So…he…is a Republican?
No one is saying anyone should “assassinate the president” this is ridiculous. They’re saying to murder him and call it a coup.
I’ll be frank. I’m opposed to the assassination of Trump, but not on any moral grounds. I’m opposed to it as a matter of practicality – because assassinations usually end up a boon for the allies of the dead, between the positioning of the target as a martyr and the ability for surviving allies to play the victim. Some lone wolf killing even the most awful tyrant does little to help when that tyrant is simply the leader of a very harmful movement.
What is actually needed is organization. The US has worked very hard for over a century to ensure that any left-wing currents that might disrupt or destroy the US government in its current form are defanged by any means necessary, and unless the left can build a proper organized political faction even the largest protests are unlikely to have any more staying power than a parade. It is organization and planning that allows everything from strikes to boycotts to protests to maintain pressure over time and achieve substantive victories. Without it, all you have are lone wolf adventurists who accomplish nothing or worse than nothing.
With that said, people discussing such things doesn’t bother me, and I don’t think it should bother you. With as often as people eagerly discuss the death of other world leaders and the overthrow of foreign nations, it’s only fair that the USA and the American President are able to be discussed the same. How many news channels have spent this year hoping for and then celebrating the death of Ayatollah Khamenei? It’s such exaggerated hypocrisy, it would be laughed at if given as a theoretical five years ago.
People like to fantasize about going back in time to kill Hitler. Well, here’s your chance, folks! No time machine needed…
Re:
It’s funny; just a couple of years ago, if I had made reference to a white-supremacist fascist head of state, of German descent, who ousted a large chunk of the government to replace them with his cronies, raised a paramilitary to ethnically cleanse the country of minorities, and invaded and/or bombed several countries, along with committing multiple assassinations, previously attempting a coup, and perpetrating a genocide…I would have been unambiguously describing Adolf Hitler.
Republicans are actively working to ensure that as few people’s votes count as possible, the supreme court are handholding the right through everything they need to do to get their way on every issue, Christians just need to screech ‘deeply held beliefs’ as a get out of laws card and minority groups are being targeted by lawfare and unaccountable thugs… This is happening after decades of Americans being told to take up arms against tyrants by people who want to sell guns, so what did anyone think was going to happen?
“Anyone who engages in or endorses political violence or assassination culture must be condemned in the harshest terms possible”
Yeah! Imagine if people started chanting “Hang Mike Pence!” Republicans would definitely be against that, right?