As several people on Bluesky have mentioned over the past day, taking stock of what is considered “political violence” should also include violence inflicted upon people by the government that is meant to represent them. Charlie Kirk’s murder was most likely an act of political violence; so is police brutality.
I personally prefer a more nuanced position that distinguishes between initiating violence against someone else vs. responding to violence initiated by someone else.That’s a fair position, and I agree with it. I do believe that some violent situations—mostly stuff like low-level scuffles that haven’t become full-on fist fights—can be resolved peacefully, but a violent response takes peace off the table. Hence why I say that violence should be a “last resort” response, to be taken only when it is necessary. But as I mentioned in the article, this position has been twisted by a certain commenter to endorse suicidal pacifism even though I believe in nothing of the sort.
I don’t think they are primarily protecting Trump (who is well-known and documented to have been a big buddy of Epstein) but rather third parties not under accusation.…so long as they’re conservatives.
“Why is Donald Trump trying to cover up a pedophile’s criminal acts?” should be a question every Democrat asks of every reporter from every network and news outlet every day.
If’n you don’t like the opinions expressed here, you’re welcome to stop reading this blog and go find one you actually like. Complaining ain’t gonna satisfy you, son.
Can you provide a citation of fact for the claim that Democrats have won elections by way of illegal votes cast by undocumented immigrants?
Door’s to your left! 👋
Would you mind providing a credible citation of fact for that claim?
Nope, it was all one blue-haired non-binary liberal college student with a lot of time on their hands. That’s what I heard from my father’s brother’s nephew’s cousin’s best friend’s former roommate at Liberty U, anyway.
where’s the evidence that they were terroristsIt’s sitting right next to the evidence of a billion illegal votes from 2020.
Three things:
Now you’re just being a spammer, and that’s worse than being a gimmick poster whose gimmick was played out after three posts.
I’m sorry if my opinions have offended you in some way, but I don’t know why you’re so insistent on believing that I speak for everyone else here. Would you explain to me why you keep attacking me like this? I’d like to know if there is anything I can do to help prevent you from spiraling into an obsession that could hurt your mental health. Obsessions can be dangerous, you know.
You obviously have some idea of what you want to say, but you seem so afraid to say it out loud. I promise that if you say what you mean and mean what you say, no one will criticize your honesty. What you say with that honesty may beget criticism, but you seem so eager to dole it out that you can surely take it in kind. So come on, tell us what’s really on your mind! 😃
Maybe they’re someone who takes criticism extra-personally and therefore equates criticism to, I’unno, being stabbed in the gut or something.
See, this is why people should switch to Linux. 🙃
What I wouldn’t give to see Trump get hit in the groin by a football…
And to prevent any voting at all in 2028.
A more pertinent question: When has “none of the above” ever been a valid ballot choice in a presidential election in the United States?