Other thought about political impact: this probably helps Trump with the age/ability contrast. Continuing to campaign after taking a bullet (albeit not a particularly damaging one) is going to enhance concerns that Biden doesn’t have the energy/stamina to be president.
Another way it'll help trump with the indies is induce them to see his conviction as part of a pattern of persecution instead of as overdue (if somewhat imperfect) justice.
Independents were already split. But the argument that democracy is more threatened by the party in power using state apparatus to imprison their opposition now has a new wrinkle: not only are they trying to imprison, but also to assassinate.
Anyone on the fence on this particular issue (and there are always people on the margin) could be tipped into Trump camp.
Why is the expectation always that the right must take the high road, while the left gets corporate sponsorships for a summer of fiery, but mostly peaceful (barf), protests?
Don’t forget the Steve Scalise shooting and attack on Rand Paul. Attacks against the right get memory holed. Attacks on the left? We never hear the end of it.
In case anyone is still in doubt, the media is the enemy of the people. The American nation must come together and unite, but where would that leave rich people profiting off of conflict?
And the demonstrations against Justice Kavanaugh at his home, while his wife and children were there (in violation of a Federal law prohibiting demonstrations outside the home of a Federal judge).
Nate Silver didn't say there was any expectation that the right must take the high road. Only that taking the high road would increase his electability chances.
The high road is always the expectation when it comes to public figures. This case in particular shows why as the alternative to the high road have some pretty dark possible paths.
Nate, you know full well what stochastic terrorism is. You know that Biden, Democrats, and the media have ramped up the rhetoric to hysterical levels. That this is an unprecedented election, that democracy is on the ballot, that Trump is a new Hitler, that he must be stopped /at any cost/. If one is pushing these extreme lines (some of which you've pushed too), one is pushing mentally ill young men into committing crimes this. Liberals understood this when Gabby Giffords was shot, and it's disgusting to see them clutch their pearls and declare how appalled they are now it's their turn to be at fault.
Give me a break. Both sides do it. People get shot, including kids at school and they don’t have secret service agents walking around with them.
How many right wingers are responsible for the massacre of Hispanics in El Paso, “they're replacing you with their voters”. Meanwhile most Hispanics don’t vote and those that do split 60/40.
Look at how the right wing write about Illhan Omar or AOC. Look at how they described Obama. Get over it! The only person responsible for the shooting is the shooter.
Motte and Bailey tactics. Democrats shrieked hysterically when Gabby Giffords was shot after Sarah Palin put out campaign literature with a target sign over target seats.
She’s definitely right about “both sides”. Political debate in America is turning into a cesspool. Some on the left have contributed and people like you are contributing as well. In case you’re wondering I’m out. No major party will get my vote.
It's also confusing that those that claimed Trump is the new Hitler are now declaring that their hopes and prayers are with Hitler, err Trump, and wish him a speedy recovery.
Only politicians are sending their thoughts and prayers and I can’t recall any of them calling Hitler. I’m not wasting my thoughts or prayers on that clown. Waste of a good prayer.
This is my position. I feel like a parent with a 24 year old (the Democrats) and a 13 year old (Republicans) in the back seat, and when I tell them to cut it out the 24 year old is like "he started it".
Which,
a) I don't care.
and b) How about as the adult involved you don't stoop down to their level?
It is embarrassing for the supposed adults in MSM/academia and the Democratic party constantly use the excuse "the Republicans/MAGA/Trump/Deplorables do it too" for their behavior.
Your policies are shit isn't the main thing you are offering that you are the adults in the room? Instead you sound like children pointing fingers at other children.
He was shot by a right wing extremist with an AR 15. Which party has been coddling up to the gun lobby and refuses to do anything? Which party does ads of their candidates shooting guns or takes Christmas pictures of the whole family with them? This has nothing to do with Democrats.
He wasn't shot by a right-wing extremist. The kid was an Antifa-linked Democrat donor who like millions of Democrats temporarily registered as a Republican in order to vote for Nikki Haley against Trump in the primary.
Do you happen to have proof for 'Antifa-linked'? All I've seen is that he donated $15 to ActBlue when he was 17 and was a registered republican who had voted in the 2022 midterm (and not since then, including any primaries).
It may end up not being true, but I didn't make it up. If it does end up being untrue it'll probably be because of the prankster (@jewgazing on Xitter) who pretended to be Crooks.
In order to vote for Nikki Haley against Trump in the primary, one would have to have voted since 2022, which the shooter did not do. And you conveniently ignored the fact that one party is 100000x more pro gun than the other.
The belief that citizens should or should not be able to defend themselves from attackers is an irrelevant straw man in this argument. Your desperation to change the subject is sad.
“Antifa-linked” lmfao log off and step into the real world you lose all credibility trying to call the other side nutjobs when you delve into conspiracy theory nonsense.
All we know is that he registered Republican for the 2022 primary and that he sent a very small contribution to a left-wing organization. So it cuts both ways. Everyone ought to admit that the only really material thing we know is that he wanted to kill Trump.
Right wing extremist? He contributed to Act Blue. What evidence do you have that he was a "right wing extremist"? That he registered Republican for the Pennsylvania primary in 2022? That he belonged to a gun club? In fact, none of his classmates knew much about him at all because he kept to himself. So you don't know; you surmise because it fits your preconceptions.
He didn't, as it happens—another media canard. He wondered thoughtfully to a friend, at a time when no one knew how Trump would turn out, if he might end up being America's Hitler. He since answered his own question in the negative, recognising that Trump—for all his many faults!—is far from a Hitler. Trump mostly governed as a moderate Democrat from the 90s, very much in the vein of a Bill Clinton, albeit more liberal and progressive on things like gay rights. That the Democratic Party has radicalised dramatically since the 90s is hardly Trump's fault.
Completely possible to hold two thoughts simultaneously:
I am horrified by the assassination attempt;
I would prefer not to have Trump re-elected.
As per Face The Nation this morning, Dems that were planning to approach Biden yet again this week have, bc of yesterday’s shooting, have decided to stand down, supposedly to “avoid more chaos.”
I’m sorry, but I simply cannot square the two. I don’t think the assassination attempt has any bearing on Americans’ overwhelming sentiment that Biden should step aside. Why do the Dems seem intent on limping to defeat?
It’s clear they don’t have a critical mass to force Biden out and one way or another the subject was going to get changed, though I think most imagined it would be the convention and VP selection.
Part of the whole logic of benefiting from replacing Biden is that he would be, on some level, willing to allow it. If he can’t be convinced, then the options are really bad if you’re a Dem insider. They would have to kamikaze the party to get a different nominee, which defeats the purpose.
Trump is a fund-raging machine, there’s more money to be made as an opposition party to an extremely polarizing president than there is in trying to run things with the weakest possible head of state.
I hear that, and I agree, but their pussyfooting completely undercuts every argument they’ve made about Trump’s existential threat to democracy. And it reveals them to be feckless cowards - not that that’s a huge surprise - but it’s still shocking to watch the party throw 70% of their fellow Americans under the bus out of concern for how it affects their own corrupt careers ….
I do find the hypocrisy from the left on rhetoric interesting. They blame Trump for inciting a riot (Jan 6) based on his rhetoric (where he instructed people to march peacefully to the capitol), but Biden constantly claims Trump is a threat to democracy and people’s freedoms and then says to donors it’s time to put Trump in the bullseye. That’s far more inciting and yet no one in the media will condemn Biden.
It's legitimate to criticize Trump for degrading Democratic norms IMO but the accusations that his election will be like Hitler's Machtergreifung in 1933 are hysterical and could contribute to violence.
Well he has said he will focus on retribution, he has said he will appoint only cabinet officials who are going to do nothing but his bidding, he has said he will fire 50,000 civil service people and turn Civil service back into a patronage thing. These are things Trump has said.
Do you think we should just ignore these things and pretend he didn't say them?
He didn't say he'd focus on retribution. That's classic BlueAnon misinformation. He said that if he acted like Biden he could focus on retribution, but that he's better than that so he won't. So the mainstream media only showed the first bit and clipped out the end. So NPCs who download their beliefs from the MSM think he said he'd focus on retribution. As I say, classic BlueAnon.
"I am your warrior, I am your justice,” Trump said in a nearly 90-minute speech, most of it focused on perceived political enemies and slights. “For those who have been wronged and betrayed … I am your retribution."
Eh, I think there is at least a little difference between mere radicalizing rhetoric and someone who, in addition to that then assembled a crowd who (whether at his behest or no) immediately went down the road and tried to violently interfere with government. Not that radicalizing rhetoric in either case is good (it's not, and stochastic terrorism is definitely a thing), but there is plenty of daylight between the two actions to draw a line of distinction that only one crossed.
Trump’s comments on Jan 6 are like the 10th worst thing he’s said. He has repeatedly said we won’t have a country if Biden wins again. The fear mongering from the left and right has been at least equal this campaign.
You mean that people should be peaceful? I love the delusion Jan 6 hysterical people have about that day. Tell me how many people died that day? Good test on your knowledge of the event.
What the shooting of Trump tells us is that it's time to turn down the temperature. No, Trump isn't a fascist trying to put black people into slavery or prosecute women who have abortions for murder. He is NOT a "threat to democracy". Every Democrat, including Joe Biden, has to think about how a nut would take repeated statements that to save America, we must at all costs prevent Donald Trump from returning from the White House (never mind that he never even tried to do the things they say he intends to do when he had four years to do it, including two years when he had Republican majorities in both houses). They have to think about how hysterical speeches by the Senate Majority Leader threatening Supreme Court Justices led to demonstrations in front of the Justices' houses and at least one attempt to murder a Justice.
But Republicans have to turn down the temperature, too. Joe Biden doesn't want to take every parent's authority over his or her children away and hand it to the American Federation of Teachers and the National Education Association. He doesn't want to hand America over to the Chinese. There is no proof that election fraud cost Trump the 2020 election. (No--that such allegations are unproven doesn't mean they're false, but it does mean you don't start doing things like breaking into the Capitol on that basis.)
Just as Joe Biden and Chuck Schumer didn't intend murder attempts on Donald Trump or Justice Kavanaugh, Donald Trump didn't intend rioters breaking into the Capitol screaming that the Vice President should be hanged. But the fiery rhetoric on both sides encouraged all of that. Stop! Just Stop!!! We disagree on things like defense and foreign policy, domestic spending, abortion, the rights of homosexuals and transsexuals, the security of the border, and other issues. But we decide thing at the ballot box--not with frivolous prosecutions and lawsuits, not with riots, not with election chicanery (either the sort that would let people who shouldn't vote or the sort that would keep people who should vote from voting), but by the votes of citizens properly identified as such cast without hindrance.
STOP!!! before someone IS killed by someone who thinks he's saving America from fascism or communism.
I agree with a lot of this, but I do think it’s fair to use the term “threat to democracy” to describe someone who attempts to subvert the outcome of a free and fair election (eg through alternative slates of electors).
Yeah, the guy literally tried to get the Georgia Secretary of State to forge votes for him. If that can't be considered a threat to democracy I don't know what is. That by no means merits an attempt on his life, but it's still the truth today as it was yesterday.
Yes. And Al Franken went out to "find" as many votes after Norm Coleman had won in Minnesota, and Christine Gregoire the same in Washington against Dino Rossi. We're not talking about urging fraud. We're talking about urging the secretary of state to look everywhere in case any votes were missed--exactly what the Franken and Gregoire campaigns did.
As far as alternative slates of electors. Florida's Secretary of State had certified the election returns in 2000. Al Gore had a slate of electors ready to go if he won in the Supreme Court. Was he a threat to democracy? And how about when rival slates of electors showed up in 1876? Was Tilden a threat to democracy? Or Hayes? No one suggests that Gore, Tilden or Hayes was a threat to democracy.
What IS a threat to democracy is an administration that files lawsuits to keep opponents off the ballot--not just Trump, they were trying to keep RFK off the ballot and, I believe, Dean Phillips. A threat to democracy begins dubious prosecutions and bogus lawsuits against its chief political opponent. (Compare the Democrats' court action with what Putin has done with his political opponents--which also brings to mind the whole Russia hoax perpetrated and paid for by the Clinton campaign in 2016 that tied up the Congress for the next two years until Mueller reported that there was no evidence of the so-called "collusion".
"Threat to democracy" invokes thoughts of Trump unleashing an Einsatzgruppen type thing on his political enemies, dismissing congress, etc. I agree it's technically correct but the terminology is designed to inflame. Part of turning down the temperature is getting rid of the baileys.
If continuously denying the results of every election he loses (the 2016 Iowa caucuses, 2020 election) to the point his rhetoric inspires actual violence (a certain date in 2021) doesn’t pose a threat to democracy in your eyes, what does?
you mean like Al Gore challenging the Florida outcome in 2000? Or Christine Gregoire and Al Franken EACH challenging not only the original outcome of their elections but the results of the first recounts? Play by one set of rules or shut up.
Everyone you mentioned accepted the results of their loss after recounts were finished. Trump’s been claiming his loss was fraudulent for 4 years now. Don’t pretend they’re the same.
Republicans aren't the ones trying to assassinate political figures (see also the 2017 Congressional Baseball shooting by an enraged Bernie Bro, and the guy from California who got stopped before he could try to assassinate Justice Kavanaugh in a home invasion). Republicans aren't the ones throwing massive riots and burning down city centers.
Paul Pelosi got bludgeoned by a druggie kook with wack-a-doo political opinions all over the shop; I don't think he can be fairly attributed to either side.
Gabbie Giffords was shot by a schizophrenic obsessed with numerology. No political motive was ever established for the shooter, who was a paranoid schizophrenic with no political history on either side but a long-standing personal obsession with Giffords.
I don't deny that fringe elements on the right are dangerous. But I absolutely deny that the GOP has engaged in "mob violence," or even all that much "violent rhetoric."
JD Vance saying with certainty at this point that the Democratic rhetoric led to this is irresponsible because we don't have all the facts, we don't know why he did this. But his underlying point that the Democratic message of Trump=Hitler is hysterical and could contribute to something like this is correct.
Other thought about political impact: this probably helps Trump with the age/ability contrast. Continuing to campaign after taking a bullet (albeit not a particularly damaging one) is going to enhance concerns that Biden doesn’t have the energy/stamina to be president.
100% this. Already plenty of memes flying around of Trump standing up after being shot (grazed) in contrast with Biden falling up stairs.
One candidate takes a bullet, the other takes a nap.
Another way it'll help trump with the indies is induce them to see his conviction as part of a pattern of persecution instead of as overdue (if somewhat imperfect) justice.
Independents were already split. But the argument that democracy is more threatened by the party in power using state apparatus to imprison their opposition now has a new wrinkle: not only are they trying to imprison, but also to assassinate.
Anyone on the fence on this particular issue (and there are always people on the margin) could be tipped into Trump camp.
Why is the expectation always that the right must take the high road, while the left gets corporate sponsorships for a summer of fiery, but mostly peaceful (barf), protests?
Don’t forget the Steve Scalise shooting and attack on Rand Paul. Attacks against the right get memory holed. Attacks on the left? We never hear the end of it.
In case anyone is still in doubt, the media is the enemy of the people. The American nation must come together and unite, but where would that leave rich people profiting off of conflict?
There's your answer.
You're not even a good troll. 2017 called, they want John Mistress to get new lines.
Zzz, boring. Rage-baiting trolls are so, so old.
And the demonstrations against Justice Kavanaugh at his home, while his wife and children were there (in violation of a Federal law prohibiting demonstrations outside the home of a Federal judge).
Nate Silver didn't say there was any expectation that the right must take the high road. Only that taking the high road would increase his electability chances.
Since trump, there is no expectation, or even hope, that the right will take the high road
Well, they just did. Maybe it's time you people stop yelling at your fantasies and join the rest of us back in reality.
I don't know if Trump has considered taking the high road once in his life. Remember January 6?
You mean when Trump told people to stay peaceful then go home, and they did?
The high road is always the expectation when it comes to public figures. This case in particular shows why as the alternative to the high road have some pretty dark possible paths.
Nate, you know full well what stochastic terrorism is. You know that Biden, Democrats, and the media have ramped up the rhetoric to hysterical levels. That this is an unprecedented election, that democracy is on the ballot, that Trump is a new Hitler, that he must be stopped /at any cost/. If one is pushing these extreme lines (some of which you've pushed too), one is pushing mentally ill young men into committing crimes this. Liberals understood this when Gabby Giffords was shot, and it's disgusting to see them clutch their pearls and declare how appalled they are now it's their turn to be at fault.
Give me a break. Both sides do it. People get shot, including kids at school and they don’t have secret service agents walking around with them.
How many right wingers are responsible for the massacre of Hispanics in El Paso, “they're replacing you with their voters”. Meanwhile most Hispanics don’t vote and those that do split 60/40.
Look at how the right wing write about Illhan Omar or AOC. Look at how they described Obama. Get over it! The only person responsible for the shooting is the shooter.
Motte and Bailey tactics. Democrats shrieked hysterically when Gabby Giffords was shot after Sarah Palin put out campaign literature with a target sign over target seats.
Shame on you. What horrible human being would sit here and fan the flames on this day in history.
Careful what you ask for, lady. You may just get it.
Fine. Thoughts and prayers for his ear.
She’s definitely right about “both sides”. Political debate in America is turning into a cesspool. Some on the left have contributed and people like you are contributing as well. In case you’re wondering I’m out. No major party will get my vote.
The Squad are genocidal anti-semites who have platforms made of hatred.
did you say that when Gabby Giffords was shot? Or were you one of those blaming conservatives?
It's also confusing that those that claimed Trump is the new Hitler are now declaring that their hopes and prayers are with Hitler, err Trump, and wish him a speedy recovery.
Yes! Can't wait to hear their condemnations of Stauffenberg lol
What is the New Republic saying? They’re the ones who did that cover.
Only politicians are sending their thoughts and prayers and I can’t recall any of them calling Hitler. I’m not wasting my thoughts or prayers on that clown. Waste of a good prayer.
"can’t recall any of them calling Hitler"
They said Trump is Hitler, send their thoughts and prayers for Trump. The rest follows from the reflexive property of the equality relation.
Is math racist?
Which politician called Trump Hitler? Show me the source. Unless you're lying. Is the truth racist against rednecks?
https://www.politico.com/news/2023/12/19/biden-trump-hitler-00132367
No where in there does any politician call Trump Hitler. Did you read the article or just Google Trump Hitler and return the first link?
The Right: “If Biden wins, we won’t have a country in four years!!!”
The Left: “If Trump wins, democracy in America will end!!!”
Both Sides: “omg waaah waah! The other side is using harmful rhetoric!”
I feel like a parent driving a minivan with two kids in the backseat who refuse to shut up and insist the other one started it.
This is my position. I feel like a parent with a 24 year old (the Democrats) and a 13 year old (Republicans) in the back seat, and when I tell them to cut it out the 24 year old is like "he started it".
Which,
a) I don't care.
and b) How about as the adult involved you don't stoop down to their level?
It is embarrassing for the supposed adults in MSM/academia and the Democratic party constantly use the excuse "the Republicans/MAGA/Trump/Deplorables do it too" for their behavior.
Your policies are shit isn't the main thing you are offering that you are the adults in the room? Instead you sound like children pointing fingers at other children.
He was shot by a right wing extremist with an AR 15. Which party has been coddling up to the gun lobby and refuses to do anything? Which party does ads of their candidates shooting guns or takes Christmas pictures of the whole family with them? This has nothing to do with Democrats.
He wasn't shot by a right-wing extremist. The kid was an Antifa-linked Democrat donor who like millions of Democrats temporarily registered as a Republican in order to vote for Nikki Haley against Trump in the primary.
Do you happen to have proof for 'Antifa-linked'? All I've seen is that he donated $15 to ActBlue when he was 17 and was a registered republican who had voted in the 2022 midterm (and not since then, including any primaries).
Don't recall where I saw it reported, sorry.
Yeah no shit, because you made it up!
I see you immediately failed in your resolution to boycott all my comments.
Yeah, because you made it up.
It may end up not being true, but I didn't make it up. If it does end up being untrue it'll probably be because of the prankster (@jewgazing on Xitter) who pretended to be Crooks.
In fact, I don't see much real proof that he was political either way. Obviously, shooting at someone the Left flat-out hates might suggest something.
In order to vote for Nikki Haley against Trump in the primary, one would have to have voted since 2022, which the shooter did not do. And you conveniently ignored the fact that one party is 100000x more pro gun than the other.
The belief that citizens should or should not be able to defend themselves from attackers is an irrelevant straw man in this argument. Your desperation to change the subject is sad.
And you ignore that one party hates Trump and the other doesn't.
“Antifa-linked” lmfao log off and step into the real world you lose all credibility trying to call the other side nutjobs when you delve into conspiracy theory nonsense.
All we know is that he registered Republican for the 2022 primary and that he sent a very small contribution to a left-wing organization. So it cuts both ways. Everyone ought to admit that the only really material thing we know is that he wanted to kill Trump.
Yes.
Right wing extremist? He contributed to Act Blue. What evidence do you have that he was a "right wing extremist"? That he registered Republican for the Pennsylvania primary in 2022? That he belonged to a gun club? In fact, none of his classmates knew much about him at all because he kept to himself. So you don't know; you surmise because it fits your preconceptions.
Trump's VP pick, JD Vance, called Trump "America's Hitler" in 2016.
He didn't, as it happens—another media canard. He wondered thoughtfully to a friend, at a time when no one knew how Trump would turn out, if he might end up being America's Hitler. He since answered his own question in the negative, recognising that Trump—for all his many faults!—is far from a Hitler. Trump mostly governed as a moderate Democrat from the 90s, very much in the vein of a Bill Clinton, albeit more liberal and progressive on things like gay rights. That the Democratic Party has radicalised dramatically since the 90s is hardly Trump's fault.
It's probably unfair to dunk on Vance's American Hitler comments. He hasn't changed his mind about Trump. Vance changed his mind about fascism.
Completely possible to hold two thoughts simultaneously:
I am horrified by the assassination attempt;
I would prefer not to have Trump re-elected.
As per Face The Nation this morning, Dems that were planning to approach Biden yet again this week have, bc of yesterday’s shooting, have decided to stand down, supposedly to “avoid more chaos.”
I’m sorry, but I simply cannot square the two. I don’t think the assassination attempt has any bearing on Americans’ overwhelming sentiment that Biden should step aside. Why do the Dems seem intent on limping to defeat?
It’s clear they don’t have a critical mass to force Biden out and one way or another the subject was going to get changed, though I think most imagined it would be the convention and VP selection.
Part of the whole logic of benefiting from replacing Biden is that he would be, on some level, willing to allow it. If he can’t be convinced, then the options are really bad if you’re a Dem insider. They would have to kamikaze the party to get a different nominee, which defeats the purpose.
Trump is a fund-raging machine, there’s more money to be made as an opposition party to an extremely polarizing president than there is in trying to run things with the weakest possible head of state.
I hear that, and I agree, but their pussyfooting completely undercuts every argument they’ve made about Trump’s existential threat to democracy. And it reveals them to be feckless cowards - not that that’s a huge surprise - but it’s still shocking to watch the party throw 70% of their fellow Americans under the bus out of concern for how it affects their own corrupt careers ….
I do find the hypocrisy from the left on rhetoric interesting. They blame Trump for inciting a riot (Jan 6) based on his rhetoric (where he instructed people to march peacefully to the capitol), but Biden constantly claims Trump is a threat to democracy and people’s freedoms and then says to donors it’s time to put Trump in the bullseye. That’s far more inciting and yet no one in the media will condemn Biden.
It's legitimate to criticize Trump for degrading Democratic norms IMO but the accusations that his election will be like Hitler's Machtergreifung in 1933 are hysterical and could contribute to violence.
Well he has said he will focus on retribution, he has said he will appoint only cabinet officials who are going to do nothing but his bidding, he has said he will fire 50,000 civil service people and turn Civil service back into a patronage thing. These are things Trump has said.
Do you think we should just ignore these things and pretend he didn't say them?
He didn't say he'd focus on retribution. That's classic BlueAnon misinformation. He said that if he acted like Biden he could focus on retribution, but that he's better than that so he won't. So the mainstream media only showed the first bit and clipped out the end. So NPCs who download their beliefs from the MSM think he said he'd focus on retribution. As I say, classic BlueAnon.
This is the problem: you've seen the short, edited clip of the tape, and therefore believe that you've seen the full context.
"I am your warrior, I am your justice,” Trump said in a nearly 90-minute speech, most of it focused on perceived political enemies and slights. “For those who have been wronged and betrayed … I am your retribution."
Was Kathy Griffin inciting when she posted a mockup of Trump's severed head?
https://www.tmz.com/2017/05/30/kathy-griffin-beheads-donald-trump-photo-tyler-shields/
Probably not, she is a Democrat.
Eh, I think there is at least a little difference between mere radicalizing rhetoric and someone who, in addition to that then assembled a crowd who (whether at his behest or no) immediately went down the road and tried to violently interfere with government. Not that radicalizing rhetoric in either case is good (it's not, and stochastic terrorism is definitely a thing), but there is plenty of daylight between the two actions to draw a line of distinction that only one crossed.
Trump: go kill politicians.
Biden: Trump is a dangerous person who tells his rabid fans to go kill people in an effort to destroy our democracy.
Yep, I see your point, totally the same thing.
Trump never said that….stop lying.
Again nonsense. People lie about what Trump says all the time. Also I love the vague "strongly implied". And 500 other times you say? Very convincing.
Wrong again John. If you provide evidence of what you claim, I will consider it. If it supports what you say I'll change my mind. No bad faith here.
Of course so far you have provided no such evidence either of your claims about Trump or of me lying. Try again.
Trump’s comments on Jan 6 are like the 10th worst thing he’s said. He has repeatedly said we won’t have a country if Biden wins again. The fear mongering from the left and right has been at least equal this campaign.
You mean that people should be peaceful? I love the delusion Jan 6 hysterical people have about that day. Tell me how many people died that day? Good test on your knowledge of the event.
Thanks, Nate. Another cogent and well-argued analysis.
What the shooting of Trump tells us is that it's time to turn down the temperature. No, Trump isn't a fascist trying to put black people into slavery or prosecute women who have abortions for murder. He is NOT a "threat to democracy". Every Democrat, including Joe Biden, has to think about how a nut would take repeated statements that to save America, we must at all costs prevent Donald Trump from returning from the White House (never mind that he never even tried to do the things they say he intends to do when he had four years to do it, including two years when he had Republican majorities in both houses). They have to think about how hysterical speeches by the Senate Majority Leader threatening Supreme Court Justices led to demonstrations in front of the Justices' houses and at least one attempt to murder a Justice.
But Republicans have to turn down the temperature, too. Joe Biden doesn't want to take every parent's authority over his or her children away and hand it to the American Federation of Teachers and the National Education Association. He doesn't want to hand America over to the Chinese. There is no proof that election fraud cost Trump the 2020 election. (No--that such allegations are unproven doesn't mean they're false, but it does mean you don't start doing things like breaking into the Capitol on that basis.)
Just as Joe Biden and Chuck Schumer didn't intend murder attempts on Donald Trump or Justice Kavanaugh, Donald Trump didn't intend rioters breaking into the Capitol screaming that the Vice President should be hanged. But the fiery rhetoric on both sides encouraged all of that. Stop! Just Stop!!! We disagree on things like defense and foreign policy, domestic spending, abortion, the rights of homosexuals and transsexuals, the security of the border, and other issues. But we decide thing at the ballot box--not with frivolous prosecutions and lawsuits, not with riots, not with election chicanery (either the sort that would let people who shouldn't vote or the sort that would keep people who should vote from voting), but by the votes of citizens properly identified as such cast without hindrance.
STOP!!! before someone IS killed by someone who thinks he's saving America from fascism or communism.
I agree with a lot of this, but I do think it’s fair to use the term “threat to democracy” to describe someone who attempts to subvert the outcome of a free and fair election (eg through alternative slates of electors).
Yeah, the guy literally tried to get the Georgia Secretary of State to forge votes for him. If that can't be considered a threat to democracy I don't know what is. That by no means merits an attempt on his life, but it's still the truth today as it was yesterday.
Trump didn’t do that…stop lying
“I need you to find 12,000 votes” brother it’s ON TAPE 😂
Yes. And Al Franken went out to "find" as many votes after Norm Coleman had won in Minnesota, and Christine Gregoire the same in Washington against Dino Rossi. We're not talking about urging fraud. We're talking about urging the secretary of state to look everywhere in case any votes were missed--exactly what the Franken and Gregoire campaigns did.
As far as alternative slates of electors. Florida's Secretary of State had certified the election returns in 2000. Al Gore had a slate of electors ready to go if he won in the Supreme Court. Was he a threat to democracy? And how about when rival slates of electors showed up in 1876? Was Tilden a threat to democracy? Or Hayes? No one suggests that Gore, Tilden or Hayes was a threat to democracy.
What IS a threat to democracy is an administration that files lawsuits to keep opponents off the ballot--not just Trump, they were trying to keep RFK off the ballot and, I believe, Dean Phillips. A threat to democracy begins dubious prosecutions and bogus lawsuits against its chief political opponent. (Compare the Democrats' court action with what Putin has done with his political opponents--which also brings to mind the whole Russia hoax perpetrated and paid for by the Clinton campaign in 2016 that tied up the Congress for the next two years until Mueller reported that there was no evidence of the so-called "collusion".
Out of context. I bet you also think Trump called nazis very fine people. Stop lying!
How to view Trump as a god:
Step 1: overexaggerate everything good he does
Step 2: outright deny anything bad he says or does as “fake news” or “taken out of context”
You literally can’t lose following these 2 simple rules!
"Threat to democracy" invokes thoughts of Trump unleashing an Einsatzgruppen type thing on his political enemies, dismissing congress, etc. I agree it's technically correct but the terminology is designed to inflame. Part of turning down the temperature is getting rid of the baileys.
If continuously denying the results of every election he loses (the 2016 Iowa caucuses, 2020 election) to the point his rhetoric inspires actual violence (a certain date in 2021) doesn’t pose a threat to democracy in your eyes, what does?
you mean like Al Gore challenging the Florida outcome in 2000? Or Christine Gregoire and Al Franken EACH challenging not only the original outcome of their elections but the results of the first recounts? Play by one set of rules or shut up.
Everyone you mentioned accepted the results of their loss after recounts were finished. Trump’s been claiming his loss was fraudulent for 4 years now. Don’t pretend they’re the same.
Stacey Abrams would like a word. Democrats were introducing her as the governor of Georgia for *years* after she lost.
I would like to introduce you to this video.
https://youtu.be/iRYB6N8fBKQ?si=tYQJ4CyS0dLJlJBn
Republicans aren't the ones trying to assassinate political figures (see also the 2017 Congressional Baseball shooting by an enraged Bernie Bro, and the guy from California who got stopped before he could try to assassinate Justice Kavanaugh in a home invasion). Republicans aren't the ones throwing massive riots and burning down city centers.
Both sides-ing is entirely inappropriate here.
Did you forget the Gretchen Whitmer kidnapping plot??
Or Paul Pelosi getting bludgeoned with a hammer. Or the shooting of Gabbie Gifford.
Paul Pelosi got bludgeoned by a druggie kook with wack-a-doo political opinions all over the shop; I don't think he can be fairly attributed to either side.
Gabbie Giffords was shot by a schizophrenic obsessed with numerology. No political motive was ever established for the shooter, who was a paranoid schizophrenic with no political history on either side but a long-standing personal obsession with Giffords.
What has either of these to do with Donald Trump other than your own hatred of Trump?
Exactly as much as this has to do with Biden.
The one that resulted in five acquittals because it was ginned up by the feds?
and Trump had what to do with this?
I don't deny that fringe elements on the right are dangerous. But I absolutely deny that the GOP has engaged in "mob violence," or even all that much "violent rhetoric."
“The second American revolution will be bloodless if the left allows it to be.” - direct quote from the head of the Heritage Foundation the other day
They were right. The left has already made things bloody as of Saturday. The point is the left perpetrates political violence far more than the right.
JD Vance saying with certainty at this point that the Democratic rhetoric led to this is irresponsible because we don't have all the facts, we don't know why he did this. But his underlying point that the Democratic message of Trump=Hitler is hysterical and could contribute to something like this is correct.
I’m assuming JD also includes his 2016 self.
I think he would yes