Two Minnesota state lawmakers who are members of the Democratic-Farm-Labor Party were shot early Saturday by a person posing as a law enforcement officer just north of Minneapolis.
Two Minnesota state lawmakers who are members of the Democratic-Farm-Labor Party were shot early Saturday by a person posing as a law enforcement officer just north of Minneapolis.
The comment in question pulled a “both sides” on an issue that is beyond overwhelmingly coming from the right side of the spectrum.
Two Democratic state Senators were just brutally attacked, and at least one killed. That’s not the time for Democrats to introspect, it’s a time to be outraged.
Drawing some kind of similarity between internet commenters wishing a conservative assassin had succeeded in killing Trump, and a (almost certainly) right wing chud actually assassinating two Democratic Senators is bullshit. Political violence in this country comes almost entirely one direction. Pretending otherwise just blunts that reality and makes future attacks all the more likely.
I agree with outrage. I don’t agree with violence as a reaction though. My point being that the whole narrative of “violence is right to fight back” is the exact same mindset this shooter had. In his mind, he thought violence is right to fight back, and he used it. Do you think this is a good thing?
I’m saying it’s wrong. But hey, you keep advocating for violence. Let me know how what works for you. I’m not going to join in your bloodlust and I don’t care what side you are on. Be sure let us know how your FBI interview goes after they read this thread.
Who called for violence as a reaction? Anyways, it doesn’t seem like this guy is likely to come quietly when the cops find him, so I do have to wonder what you think the cops should do if he is armed and refuses to negotiate or surrender? Some level of violence may just end up being the correct reaction. We shall see.
Uh, OK. I’ll stay by the phone.
Read the thread. You don’t see anyone in this thread that things violence is warrented?
So, nobody.
Ahhh, I guess i just read most of the comments here wrong. My bad.
So you’re saying that you and everyone in this thread agree that violence is not the answer then? No one in this thread advocates violence against the republicans. Correct?
So everyone agrees that violence is no the answer? Good, glad I was so wrong. Because I definitely think violence against any politician is wrong. Glad I am in good company and cooler heads prevail.
What does “violence is not the answer” exactly mean? I see several people pointing out that it sometimes is the answer. I don’t see anyone calling for violence as a reaction to this incident, which is what you claimed.
That means that I hope no one retaliates with violence, for the awful thing that happened with the democrats shooting. And that I don’t think violence against an politician for anything is called for. What else do you think I would mean?
Ok, then I am glad this thread agrees that no one believes that violence is warranted. So people here agree that this no politician should have violence inflicted upon them? Correct? Good, I think that’s a sensible way to approach it. And I’m glad cooler heads are prevailing.
I’m unsure why some people seem to be annoyed that I an calling for non-violence. Especially since everyone agrees. I’m glad no one is calling for violence against politicians.
Removed by mod