Which approach do you think would reduce violence in the US?

[goaded]

"While the right tells us the answer is for the left to “tone down the rhetoric”—meaning, stop criticizing them and labeling them as the fascists they are—there is perhaps another, more direct solution: GOP political leaders, officials and the goons on the right who serve them could stop waging war, murdering citizens, raping women, molesting children, denying life-saving health care, disappearing immigrants and demonizing and scapegoating whole communities.

That, I’d imagine, would “turn down the heat” considerably."

https://statuskuo.substack.com/p/were-not-crazy-were-just-gaslit

Stop hurting people

Stop talking about the harms to people

See results

[CaptainObivous]

Stopping our corrupt MSM from both promoting harmful rhetoric that can to incite violence in some individuals and stop glorifying valiance. It's not a one sided issue, MSM outlets on both sides of the isles are equally guilty, and it's by design to keeps us fighting among each other instead of wealth elites.

[goaded]

Yes, actually, it really is mostly a one sided thing, and on the right it comes from the very top.

https://x.com/HQNewsNow/status/2048876689023779133

[CaptainObivous]

It's actually not, if you actually do some research (actually read the data, some sources omit data (burning of Tesla's) skewing the results), it's a thing on both sides and comes form different places.
puck.news/.../

[goaded]

Nice article. It's still not really disputing the fact that most people going out and killing people are on the right, and it certainly doesn't suggest actions are anything like equal. (I hope you'll agree that while burning cars is bad, mass shootings are infinitely worse.)

It's also not surprising that people have stopped believing anything the administration says, they lie like rugs. Trump's ear really does seem to have made a miracle recovery, we can see from the videos that Good and Pretti weren't imminent threats to agents, and so on.

Hell, even MAGA think there's a good chance the latest assassination attempt was staged.

Which is more likely to convince an educated person that Trump is a genuine fascist - someone on the left saying he is, or Trump calling all Democrats enemies of the state, and calling immigrants "vermin" who are "poisoning the blood of the country"?

Nobody seriously believed Biden was running the government as a criminal organisation or weaponising the DoJ against political opponents, but we can see that happening with our own eyes under Trump. They just indicted Comey yet again, although they probably had to lie about the law and the first amendment to the grand jury to manage it. (Again, that's something they have done before.)

[Still-alive]

I mean the right are by far committing all the atrocities here AND their rhetoric is more violent than the left. so they got the double whammy there.

Democrats have NOTHING to apologize for!

[goaded]

Oh, they do, but it's more about not doing enough for the average person than deliberately causing harm to certain groups of them.

[Still-alive]

Well the aipac dems are terrible and they do need to go as well, but in regards to this topic they are not the ones going around shooting up places, sending out ice agents and sending normal citizens to death camps, passing anti-abortion laws etc. the right are the ones being violent here

[goaded]

Absolutely.

[AyChingao]

@Still-alive yep. We have to get campaign finance in order. Do something about "citizens united" maybe? I mean, Hey, that campaign ain't gonna fund itself

[Still-alive]

@AyChingao Yeah citizens untied really needs to go. i saw montana passing something to curb that though. i saw Bernie talking about it. we need more legislation around that bad scotus decision

[Still-alive]

@AyChingao https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p1fPbGHe3xE

Robert Reich explained it here. we need this stuff more

[AyChingao]

Robert Reich is awesome. Been following him since '15... wish Bernie could drop 20 years right quick.

[Still-alive]

WOW that exitseven dude is fucking deranged!

". I was ready to start shooting liberals after Charlie kirk was murdered but today would work okay too"

lol wow. he literally wants to use the guns... soooo badly

[AyChingao]

Lol... his application to join Meal Team Six was probably rejected. Pent up rejection rage :v

[888theGreat]

Answer"

1) Quit ignoring that we have more mentally ill people now than ever before. Prison or ignoring the problem isn't working. We need treatment for those people.

2) Guns. Mental Helath Records must be available for gun checks and we must outlaw Gun Shows , that is a way many people get guns that should be able to. Also , lay the law down to people with guns that don't secure their guns allowing other people to use them Also , any man that has abused wife or Girlfriend should not be allowed to buy a gun or knife.

3) Use the Rule of law for everyone. Rich or poor , Democrat or Republican, Famous or not.

4) Have standard rules for Protests , what protester is allowed to do and how police and Ice are allowed to respond.

5) No exceptions to the above rules

6) Follow the Constitution to the letter. Especially on what brance of Government is supposed to do. This will not allow one brance more power than the other.

7) Take more actions against Bullies and shooters in Schools. Serious charges.

8) Don't allow parole for violent offenders like Rape and murder.

[SeekerOfTruth007]

Mental Illness is not the cause of violence, least of all planned violence. I have a case of either bipolar or schizoeffective, which means I have both bipolar and schizophrenia symptoms, and I can tell you, before they started me on Abilify, it was IMPOSSIBLE to plan anyting in my life, least of all violence. Real mental illness terrifies the victim into being paralyzed their entire life. There is no way for a mentally ill person to play a three stages of contingency planning to murder dozens of people all while distracting the police with bombs and snares, the way James Holmes did. He got away with MASS MURDER and gets a free three hot meals every day for life because of it. That is not "mental illness". That is literally three levels of contingency planning to MURDER PEOPLE.

Most people who have real mental illnesses are harmless and they also tend to be victimized by everyone else. If you had a mental illness, you'd know what I'm talking about.

[888theGreat]

@SeekerOfTruth007 Anyone that murders another person is mentally ill or sadistic

[SeekerOfTruth007]

No, you're re-defining what mental illness means. They are sadistic, yes, but that doesn't make them mentally ill, it just makes them evil.

I've actually been hospitalized a total of 16 times for mental illness in my adult life before they finally found the right medication to treat me. I haven't had major symptoms like that since they put me on the correct medication, which technically wasn't even invented yet when I first had symptoms. I've never had a criminal record and never hurt another person in my life, and the two times I was arrested, all charges were dropped against me. In fact, one of those two times wasa completely bogus set of charges while I was on vacation in Tennessee. They violated all 5 of my first 5 consitutional rights, and the judge threw out the charges, which I didint' do anything wrong in the first place.

The point is a truly mentally ill person does not go around planning violence. They are too disabled by the illness to plan violence.

Lunatics deserve treatment.
Murderers deserve punishment.

[msc545]

Mental health records are not as precise or as good as you think they are. That said, if you require me to make a decision as to whether or not somebody should have a gun, as a mental health professional, I'm going to refuse to make that decision.

[Phunk_Fenomenon]

You’re free to have an opinion about the US.

however your framing is way too one-sided to be taken seriously. an outsider that wants to lecture Americans about reducing violence, and who most likely never laid a foot in our country needs to say more than “my side good, your side evil.” That is not analysis. That is just partisan venting.

also your profile says you are from Germany. last time I checked I really do not remember us Americans throwing our two cents when the people in your country decided to elect Hitler as your leader.

[goaded]

People like you encouraged it. What other president has pardoned people who violently attacked the police on their behalf? What other president told his supporters to beat up protesters?

[Phunk_Fenomenon]

oh yeah because a random meme you found online is "Evidence." dont make me laugh

anyways I do not defend anyone attacking police. But “people like you encouraged it” is lazy guilt-by-association. Criticize Trump’s rhetoric or his pardons if you want, but do not pretend that every voter who disagrees with you is responsible for a riot. That is not serious political analysis. That is just more partisan blame in your behalf.

[goaded]

What other president has pardoned people who violently attacked the police on their behalf? What other president told his supporters to beat up protesters?

It's not a "random meme", it's the first picture of American Nazis at Madison Square Gardens in the 1930's. Are you pretending it didn't happen? They were Americans encouraging Germany to elect Hitler.

They were people like you. The difference being that they didn't know how the story would end. You know how it ended and you're still supporting the most corrupt US president ever.

[Phunk_Fenomenon]

I can write you an entire book on how your meme is still misleading.

first off that was an event created by Friends of New Germany, an organization of Americans that did supported Nazis because they were gullible enough to believe Hitler's sugarcoated speeches and ideas.

luckily that organization only had 20,000 members and last time I checked the population in America was 132 Million in the 1930s. therefore 20,000 people is not even close to 1% of the 132 Millions.

so just because 20,000 of the 132 Millions of people in the US supported the Nazi party does not mean our whole population did. lets not get ahead of ourselves now, that's like saying Germany is pro Trump now just because 20,000 folks in your country support Trump

[Phunk_Fenomenon]

lastly I like to point out that you’re not arguing anymore. You’re just escalating into guilt-by-association and Nazi comparisons.

I don’t defend people attacking police, rioting, looting, or threatening anyone — regardless of which side they claim to support. But blaming millions of ordinary voters for the worst actions of a few people is not serious reasoning.

If that is your standard, then it has to apply across the board. Every movement has had criminals, extremists, and violent people trying to attach themselves to it. That does not make every voter on that side personally responsible.

Criticize Trump’s rhetoric or his pardons if you want. But “people like you” is just a lazy personal attack, not an argument.

till it seems like you have a problem making sweeping generalizations. which doesn't make you look good in a fair decent argument

[goaded]

Saying I'm "escalating into guilt-by-association and Nazi comparisons" when you literally said "your profile says you are from Germany... your country decided to elect Hitler as your leader" is typical.

I said they were "people like you", not that they were a majority, let alone the "whole population". So that's a red herring.

You clearly are gullible enough to have believed Trump's sugarcoated speeches and ideas, just like they were to believe Hitler's.

You still haven't answered my questions: What other president has pardoned people who violently attacked the police on their behalf? What other president told his supporters to beat up protesters?

Add to that what other president brought a mob of supporters to the Capitol to try and stay in power despite losing an election?

That's what makes Trump personally responsible for a large amount of political violence in the US.

[Phunk_Fenomenon]

You keep trying to make this personal with “people like you” and “gullible,” but that is not an argument.

On your questions: yes, Trump’s January 6 pardons can be criticized. I do not defend anyone attacking police. But that still does not prove ordinary voters encouraged violence or are personally responsible for every criminal act committed that day.

As for “told supporters to beat up protesters,” give the exact quote and context. There is a difference between criticizing heated political rhetoric and claiming someone gave a direct order to commit violence.

And if your standard is that a political leader is responsible for every violent person who claims to support his side, then apply that standard consistently. Riots, looting, assaults, and attacks on police have happened around left-wing causes too. I do not blame every Democrat voter for that, and I am not accepting that standard when you apply it to Republicans.

So criticize Trump if you want. But stop pretending guilt-by-association is a serious argument.

[goaded]

"You keep trying to make this personal"?
Again: your opinion started with "your profile says you are from Germany... your country decided to elect Hitler as your leader".

I never said "ordinary voters encouraged violence or are personally responsible for every criminal act committed that day." (Jan 6). I said Trump did and was.

Trump literally said he'd pay supporters' legal fees if they beat up protesters at his events. You must know this.

You pretend not to know the difference between political leaders literally calling for violence and political leaders explaining wrongdoing and people acting on that information. I don't believe you.

[Phunk_Fenomenon]

Once again you’re trying to turn this into a "Germany-and-Hitler" debate because that’s easier than defending what you actually said and because apparently it feeds your self righteous ego.

Just a reminder, I didn’t blame you personally for Hitler. That wasn’t the point. The point was that collective blame is lazy. You wouldn’t want modern Germans judged by the worst chapters of German history, and I don’t blame you for that. But at least dont be a HYPOCRITE by turning around and judging all of us American conservatives by the worst examples you can find that only suit your narrative.

again you can criticize Trump’s rhetoric. Go ahead. I’m not saying every word he says is perfect or harmless. But your poll wasn’t just, “Trump said something bad.” You literally framed one side as causing harm and the other side as simply exposing it. That’s not a serious question. That’s a loaded setup.

If your real point is, “Political leaders shouldn’t encourage violence,” then just say that. I can agree with that. But at least try to apply the standard evenly. Because if you only worried about dangerous rhetoric when it suits your self righteous narrative then this isn't about your concern for violence. is about you wanting to show how overly inflated your ego is.

again this was never an argument yo begin with It’s just partisan preaching dressed up as concern.

[goaded]

Once again, I pointed out that you started this opinion with a Germany-and-Hitler comment. I pointed out that there were Americans back then who supported Hitler and argued that you, like them in the past, believed the "sugar-coated lies". The difference is that back then they didn't know where support for a monster can end up; you do.

At least you've moved from pretending I was talking about all Americans to just "all of us American conservatives". It's a step in the direction of honesty, although that's not just MAGA, and even they're waking up.

Unless you can show an example of left-wing violence for something Democratic leadership lied about (like Trump constantly does with the 2020 election, calling Democrats the “enemy from within", “lunatics” and a bigger threat to the U. S. than foreign adversaries like Russia or China, etc.), your constant both-siderism is bullshit.

There is nothing "even" about the situation today. Pretending there is is simply protecting the side doing massive damage to the country while robbing it blind.

[Phunk_Fenomenon]

you just keep proving my point the more you talk and repeat your nonsense.

You’re still clinging to the Hitler/Germany line because it gives you an excuse to avoid the actual point.

My point was simple: it is dishonest to take a small group of extremists and use them to smear a whole country or political side.

That Madison Square Garden Nazi event did not represent America. It represented a tiny fringe group of Nazi sympathizers; only 20,000 members attend it. America had around 130 million people at the time, and that rally was nowhere close to representing the country. Using that as proof that “America backed Hitler” sounds extremely retarded in your part.

Same logic applies today. Taking the worst people on the right, then acting like they represent all American conservatives, is also not just retarded but extremely hypocritical.

You keep saying you’re only talking about Trump or MAGA, but your framing is always broader than that. You talk like the MAGA is uniquely violent, uniquely dishonest, and uniquely dangerous. Then when your views are challenged, you narrow it down and act like that’s what you meant the whole time.

And no, asking for the same standard to be applied to the left is not “both-siderism.” It’s basic honesty. something that hypocrites never comprehend.

If a Republican leader uses reckless rhetoric, criticize it. Fine. But when Democrats call Republicans fascists, Nazis, threats to democracy, traitors, racists, women-haters, and enemies of the country, you pretend that has no effect at all.

That’s the double standard.

So the real question is simple: are you against political rhetoric that dehumanizes people and encourages hatred, or are you only against it when Republicans do it?

[goaded]

"My point was simple: it is dishonest to take a small group of extremists and use them to smear a whole country or political side."
The problem is that the "small group of extremists" are the ones running the country.

Why is it dishonest to point out that the leader of the Republican party, Trump, literally said he'd pay supporters' legal fees if they beat up protesters at his events? That he lied about 2020, calls Democrats the “enemy from within", “lunatics” and a bigger threat to the U. S. than foreign adversaries like Russia or China, etc?

The standard is whether they're telling the truth or lying. Propaganda or reporting.

Pointing out lies is not lying. Describing the party under Trump that is actively taking away the chance for people's votes to make a difference in order to keep power (not to mention the attacks on democracy on Jan 6) as being "threats to democracy" is simply an accurate description of what's going on. Eliminating all the black representation in states that were prevented from doing so by the VRA can't be anything but racism. 32% of the population don't even get one of nine Representatives?

Corruption and lying are very human, and Trump and his enablers are the ones doing it and dehumanizing everyone they don't like. Pointing that out isn't dehumanizing anyone.

[Phunk_Fenomenon]

You keep doing the same thing: when challenged on your broad framing, you dump a pile of anti-Trump talking points and act like that proves your original claim.

It doesn’t.

Nobody said you can’t criticize Trump. Nobody said January 6 was good. Nobody said reckless rhetoric should be ignored.

The issue is that you keep treating your side’s interpretation as “truth” and anyone who disagrees as either lying, racist, fascist, or protecting evil. That is exactly the kind of dehumanizing political rhetoric you claim to oppose.

You say “the standard is whether they’re telling the truth or lying.” Fine. Then apply that standard evenly.

When Democrats call half the country fascists, Nazis, racists, threats to democracy, women-haters, and enemies of the people, that is not some harmless act of truth-telling. That is political demonization too.

And this is why your argument is not serious. You don’t oppose dangerous rhetoric. You oppose dangerous rhetoric only when it comes from the side you already hate.

Also, the Madison Square Garden Nazi rally example still proves my point. A fringe group did not represent America then, and extremists do not represent every conservative now. You keep trying to blur that line because your argument depends on collective blame.

So again: are you against dehumanizing political rhetoric as a principle, or only when Republicans do it?

also January 6, an event that occur over 5 years ago does not give you a blank check to smear every conservative forever.

[goaded]

You keep doing the same thing: when challenged on your broad framing with facts about Trump, and facts about language, you try to pretend both sides are equal, and that the regime with massively unpopular policies, that's constantly lying to the people, and is handing out government money to people convicted of felonies, is no worse than the Democrats.

"Nobody said January 6 was good", no, many Republicans do.

"Nobody said reckless rhetoric should be ignored", and yet they just do, because there's so much shit flooding the zone from the right, particularly accusing the other side of doing what they're really doing. That's a technique that dates back to the Nazis, as well.

It's not an interpretation to say that Jan 6 was bad, and the Trump was behind it. It's a fact. Just read Jack Smith's testimony under oath about how their case was based on Republicans putting country above party. judiciary.house.gov/.../...t_Redacted-w-Errata.pdf

Republicans are also far from "half the country", that's you pretending to popularity for amazingly unpopular policies.

"Americans’ approval of Congress has fallen to 10%, barely above its all-time low of 9%, while disapproval has climbed to 86%, tying the record high for the institution."
news.gallup.com/.../...gress-ties-record-high.aspx

"Trump hit a new second term net approval low of -20.1" on the 17th.
www.natesilver.net/.../trump-approval-ratings-nate-silver-bulletin

[Phunk_Fenomenon]

You’re doing it again. at this point you are just projecting and parroting every from before.

You’re throwing out a pile of links and talking points instead of answering the actual criticism.

My point was not “Trump never says reckless things.” My point was not “January 6 was good.” My point was not “every Republican politician is perfect.”

My point was that you keep using selective examples to paint an entire political side as uniquely evil, violent, racist, and dangerous. Then when called out on that broad framing, you retreat to “I’m just stating facts.”

No, you’re not just stating facts. You’re choosing facts that support your narrative, ignoring anything that complicates it, and then using that to morally condemn a huge group of people.

Approval ratings do not prove moral guilt. Congress being unpopular does not prove your side is right. Trump being unpopular with many Americans does not mean everyone who disagrees with you is defending violence or fascism.

And please stop with the Nazi comparisons. You used a fringe Nazi rally to imply something broader about America, then got mad when I pointed out why collective blame is dishonest. Now every disagreement somehow becomes “that’s what Nazis did too.”

That is not an argument. That is a smear tactic.

So answer the principle clearly: do you reject dehumanizing political rhetoric no matter who uses it, or only when it comes from Republicans?

[goaded]

You’re doing it again. at this point you are just projecting and parroting everything from before.

Maybe you should try coming up with facts that show both sides are actually equal, as you seem to believe.

Name a Democratic president that has pardoned people who violently attacked the police on their behalf.

Name a Democratic president that told his supporters to beat up protesters.

Name a Democratic president that used violence to stay in power after losing an election.

Name a Democratic president that created a slush fund to pay taxpayer money to people who committed crimes on their behalf.

Name a Democratic president that sold pardons to convicted and unrepentant fraudsters, letting them off repaying their victims.

Name a Democratic president that set free a convict who imported 400 tons of cocaine into the US.

Name a Democratic president that did anything like any of that.

Then, maybe, I'll agree that "both sides do it".

Oh, and your proposed "principle" is a cop-out. It matters if the accusations are true (e. g. "people are being grabbed off the streets by armed masked men, even US citizens") or a lie (e. g. "Trump won the 2020 election").

Calling people fascists and Nazis is not dehumanising them, if they're acting like fascists and Nazis.

Calling citizens traitors or “enemy from within” for saying true things (like what the law says) that upsets you is. Saying groups are "poisoning the blood of the country" is. Pledging to “root out... vermin” is.

Oh, and those "links" are evidence, sources. You might like to try finding one on your side.

[Phunk_Fenomenon]

sorry but you’re not asking for equal standards. You’re asking me to find a Democrat who copied Trump’s exact actions, and if I can’t, you declare your side innocent. That’s not logic, that's being delusional.

Different sides do different bad things. The question is whether the same moral standard applies to both.

You clearly don’t apply the same standard. When your side uses extreme labels, you call it “truth.” but when the Trump supporters uses extreme labels, you call it Nazi propaganda.

That is the double standard and most of all the HYPOCRISY I’m talking about. which doesn't surprise me as you and the rest of the left is notorious for this behavior.

also I like to remind you that repeating yourself and parroting everything I said back will not make you right. in a game of chess you win by thinking strategically before making a move, not by mirroring your opponent's move like a lazy bird brain

[goaded]

Nope, you missed: "Name a Democratic president that did anything like any of that." What "different bad things" have Democratic presidents done? Can you name one, let alone a half a dozen?

"when the Trump supporters uses extreme labels, you call it Nazi propaganda"
That's because they're lying. I explained that. Did you not get the difference between "people are being grabbed off the streets by armed masked men, even US citizens" and "Trump won the 2020 election"? The former is true, the latter not.

[Phunk_Fenomenon]

no, you still have not answer the point. all you did was declared yourself right again.

“My side is telling the truth and your side is lying” is what every partisan says. That is why your argument needs a neutral standard.

Your standard is not neutral. It is: Democrats accuse, therefore it is truth. Republicans accuse, therefore it is Nazi propaganda.

That’s not a principle. That’s a permission slip for your own side.

I’m not playing your “name the exact same Democratic president” game because that was never my claim. My claim is that political demonization and reckless rhetoric are not magically harmless when Democrats do it.

You still haven’t answered that. all you been doing is evading every claim by pretending to be the judge, jury, and referee of the case and game that you are obviously losing at

[goaded]

What am I supposed to do? Lie, and say both sides are equally bad? I gave a list of lies, corruption, and violent rhetoric coming from the leader of the Republican party. You don't even dispute them, let alone provide counter-examples (because you know full well there are practically none).

Yes, both sides say “My side is telling the truth and your side is lying”, but the facts show which one is really lying.

Did Trump lost in 2020? Have armed, masked, ICE agents grabbed US citizens off the streets? Is Trump enriching himself off the presidency? Is Trump pardoning unrepentant convicted felons and leaving victims of fraud without any chance of getting their money back?

You have no "standards", you only have ridiculous claims of "both sides".

And I never claimed you had to show a Democratic president doing exactly the same as Trump, I asked for examples of one doing anything like as bad as any one of the examples I gave.

Another pathetic claim of "you are obviously losing" from someone who's obviously wrong. It should have been one of the options on this old question.

Which of these most says "I've lost the argument"? ↗

[Phunk_Fenomenon]

2 days later and you keep saying “facts” like it magically turns your partisan framing into objective truth.

well I got news for ya, it doesn’t.

A person can cite real events and still use them dishonestly by stretching them into broad guilt-by-association.

That was my point from the start. A fringe Nazi rally did not represent America in the 1930s. January 6 does not give you a blank check to smear every conservative today. Trump’s conduct does not make every Republican voter a fascist. And calling your opponents Nazis every time they disagree with you is not “truth.” It’s lazy political demonization. is too bad that your ego won't let you notice your hypocrisy and habit pattern of making sweeping generalization.

You don’t want equal standards. You want moral immunity for your side.

That’s why this keeps going in circles.

[goaded]

Facts are objective truth. It's pretty much the definition. Like the fact that you mentioned Hitler first. Regretting that now?

You say "A fringe Nazi rally did not represent America in the 1930s". You're right. But I didn't say that. I said they were people like you (literally "America First!"). Only not as bad, because they didn't know how the Nazis would turn out to be. You do.

I'm not doing "guilt-by-association", I'm saying Trump is guilty of all the bad things he's done, and you're ignoring it because you know you don't have any examples of Democrats doing anything like as bad things while desperately wanting to claim "both sides" all the time.

I'm not "going in circles", I'm saying "these are facts", "this is what Trump has done", and asking what Democratic president has done anything like as bad, to which you say "both sides" "both sides" "both sides" "both sides" "both sides" "both sides" "both sides".

Talk about a "sweeping generalization"!

[Phunk_Fenomenon]

ok buddy, now you’re not debating. You’re literally preaching your self righteous views.

You tried so hard to make yourself the judge of truth, declared your side innocent, declared your opponents Nazis, and now you think repeating what you consider “facts” over and over proves that you and the rest of the left are morally superior somehow

once again, It does not.

Facts matter, but so does how you use them. You’re using them to excuse your own side’s demonizing language while condemning the other side’s. That is again HYPOCRISY as I pointed out from the start.

I’m not spending another day or two arguing with you as you dodge that point and crown yourself the winner over and over again.

I'm done here, so go ahead and have the last word if you think it helps you sleep at night.

[goaded]

No, I'm posting facts. Feel free to dispute any of them. Or you can continue to to lie about what I say and that both sides are the same. Show me some Democratic "demonizing language" that isn't actually, you know, factual.

[lightbulb27]

I've seen a few mentally ill people around my city. I've seen some left leaning people posting.

The media controls the minds of everyone combined with the emotional issues of the day.

What would best pacify the violence would be better distribution of wealth and more respectful communication throughout.

Someone dug up this old clip from ronald reagan being shot... the rhetoric has deteriorated so far that SNL and Jimmy seem normal and will defend what they say. I don't recall people threatening Biden, but each president has been attacked personally, which is too far. Even attcking spouses and family now...

We've declined in our demeanor, it was a slow erosion. See it? We had wars and stupidity before... it's different now for some reason. <can't find the clip...> oh well.

[goaded]

"better distribution of wealth" would be good.

As to deteriorating rhetoric, can you give me an example of a Democrat lowering the tone that I can't show a Republican doing worse previously?

[lightbulb27]

not going to work that hard right now. I think it's bad on both sides, communications broke down. most notable at Obama admin time, including republicans attacks, and thereafter. But there is no mistaking the media/humor outlets bias against republicans... these outlets are oriented in hollywood and new york (SNL as example, night shows), and they joke or skit about president in ways they didn't before. Slow erosion...

[goaded]

See, I don't think it's remotely comparable. Remember the lies about Obama not being a US citizen? Remember McConnell saying he was committed to making Obama a one-term president?

It's one thing to block legislation that's totally against your party's position, it's another to block what was essentially your own party's legislation from a decade or so before.

Comedians make fun of Republicans, because they're ridiculous. They've also made fun of Democratic presidents, but they've never tried to have them fired or their networks shut down because of a few jokes.

[lightbulb27]

Im not the only one that has seen a change in the rhetoric over time... the left is definitely harsh. yes the right has been bad too.

[Theunfadeable]

The right has the most sensible solution wishes to enforce the law and hold people accountable when they hurt people.

Where are people getting hurt the most? In the liberal city with no bail where crime is barely enforced we’re criminals and illegals are running wild. These liberal goofballs blow their budget, putting illegal immigrants in fancy hotels and now they don’t no the budget for law-enforcement. You gotta try hard to fuck up as bad as as a Democrat.

[goaded]

Have you ever even been to a city?

[Theunfadeable]

Yeah, the city I lived in. It was great when it was run by Republicans. Now we have a bunch of gangs and homeless and camps. All the places that people used to go hang out and spend money generate tourism all look like shit now after eight years of democratic leadership.

[Theunfadeable]

Have you been to a city?😆

[goaded]

I've lived in one of the biggest. The mayor's a Muslim!

[SeekerOfTruth007]

Abortion is not health care. It is murder. Why can't dummycrats understand that murder is wrong whether you do it in the womb or outside the womb?

There have been around 120 million abortions in the USA alone since Roe V Wade originally falsely ruled that an unborn child wasn't alive. That's more than a third of the entire present USA population murdered by Democrats.

If you really cared about violence, you'd ban abortion.

[goaded]

That's your opinion. I think it's wrong. It's ridiculous to claim that causing a miscarriage of a cluster of cells, let alone a single fertilised ovum, is murder. Most people would agree that shortly before birth is, even if the pregnancy is unwanted. That's a reasonable position.

There can be a grey area in the middle, but most abortions are very early on. Late abortions are usually end of life decisions by the obvious next of kin when there's no hope.

upload.wikimedia.org/.../...2016_histogram.svg.png

Oh, and Republican women get abortions too, you know.

[msc545]

This is the infamous quote: "You are only entitled to live if you are a certain size." Argument which is really ridiculous. It's like the "your head must reach the bottom of this bar" in order to ride on these Cars thing at Disneyland. In the case of Disneyland, it may be that the park had a good reason for this in that you probably couldn't reach the pedals if you weren't tall enough to reach the bottom of the bar. On the other hand, if something is a certain size, that is not really the issue. The issue is, is it alive? Because if it's alive and you are planning to kill it or you actually do kill it, that is murder. There's no way around that, including your chronic pandering to what you believe are women's rights.

I believe that an unborn child's right to life supersedes a woman's convenience.

[SeekerOfTruth007]

@msc545 THANK YOU, and you used the right word, "convenience". The women are aborting their child out of sheer vanity and laziness. It's not "convenient" in their selfish lives, so they terminate it.

[msc545]

I think that's why about 80-5 to 90% do it. I think the other 9 or 10% do it because they think it will disfigure them to have a child.

[msc545]

Also, Seeker, I may be preaching to the choir a bit, but you know what? Let's not mince words here. Instead of using the word "terminate," let's use the real word, which is MURDER. Abortion is murder.

[exitseven]

They will never stop the anti /Trump hatred. I was ready to start shooting liberals after Charlie kirk was murdered but today would work okay too. I am sure we can arrange the FBI to not look to closely at them and maybe just label them as "accidental"

[goaded]

See, that's one of the problems, you think you should be able to get away with murder because you're on the side of the powerful. Like those guys in Georgia who murdered the jogger. You shouldn't. It's against the law.

[AyChingao]

So much for "toning down the rhetoric". Would visiting an 84 year old man with a hammer in hand suffice?

[exitseven]

@ that's the thing about the left. They have no problem attacking an elderly person wearing a MAGA hat or a woman in a Tesla but somebody that looks like they can fight back gets a good leaving alone.

[AyChingao]

lmao... no that's exactly what the MAGA thug did to Pelosi's husband. No remorse or even remembrance of that I see. So easily the right forgets the murderts it committed. *See Minnesota lawmakers*

[Staximus]

That whole Charlie Kirk thing is fishy as fuck

[CaptainObivous]

@Staximus It is fishy, since his assassination took place after he started questioning Israel.
@exitseven Promoting violence in reaction to violence is not a good look and cements the false image that violence only comes from the right. PS, you're very well uninformed if you believe Kirk, who started questioning Israel, was killed by a lone gunman.

[exitseven]

@AyChingao that was no bMAGA thug. That was an illegal alien from Canada and somebody known to Paul Pelosi

[AyChingao]

Thid is why it's pointless to try and discuss anything with a MAGAt. Said it a million times over thr past 11 years. None of you would even be adult enough to admit it if you burned the bacon. Useless.

[DryGermanGuy]

@exitseven
Wrong again, as usual:
en.wikipedia.org/.../Attack_on_Paul_Pelosi

[AyChingao]

Republicans would stand over a corpse that they just created with 79 stab wounds they put in it, and try to sue it for screaming OW! before it bled out. NO humanity in them.

[najekim]

Put out a bounty for every known violent gang member and every known hard drug dealer. The most violence are gang related so eliminate the members. . . .

I remember awhile ago that a good size city made it mandatory for every head-of-household had to own a firearm and be proficient in its use. All crime dropped around 60% in the first year or so.

"An armed society is a polite society." - Robert A. Heinlein (author)

[goaded]

Kennesaw, Georgia? A city (town) of 30,000 people.

"Kennesaw residents were required to own guns... save for those Kennesaw residents who couldn't afford guns, couldn't use guns, couldn't legally own guns, or simply didn't want to have guns."

"It was not meant to be an enforceable law. The police department has never searched homes to make sure you had a gun. It was meant more or less as a political statement to support citizens' second amendment rights to own firearms."

It didn't significantly affect crime rates at all.

Heinlein was very right wing. Maybe try facts over fiction?
www.snopes.com/fact-check/kennesaw-gun-law/

[najekim]

I will admit that I was going from memory of news articles decades ago (about two years after the ordinance went into effect) and with that area going, there most likely been upsurges in crime again. But the idea is sound, IMHO.

[goaded]

Countries with better gun regulation have a fraction of the murders the US has. I think you have one state, New Hampshire, that comes close to European country's murder rates, and the next best states have 50% higher rates (and the worst have 10x the rate).

en.wikipedia.org/.../List_of_U.S._states_and_territories_by_intentional_homicide_rate
en.wikipedia.org/.../List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate

[najekim]

To me, the percentages presented really don't show what I consider "the defining factors" if you will. How many of them are criminal and/or gang related? How many was committed by the mentally ill? And how many were done by some poor sap who happened to have a really bad day?

Remove the criminal/gang related numbers, and the overall numbers would probably go way down.

[goaded]

"How many of them are criminal and/or gang related?"
Most of them in all those countries. Arguably more in countries where possession of firearms without a licence is a criminal offence than in the US where they're commonplace. That means countries with gun regulation would have an even smaller fraction of the murders the US has.

If you don't give guns to people who are likely to have "a really bad day", be "mentally ill", or be "criminal and/or gang related", you get fewer murders. It's not really difficult to understand.

[loveslongnails]

Let all the Scumpie supporters secede and form their own country. When they don't have LGBTQ people to scream at, or non-whites, or liberals to hate, they can find those within their own new world to hate instead.

[Maybe_Maybe_not]

You mean realistically?

Uhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh...

Uhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh...

HUH?

Damn, nothing comes to mind.

[Maybe_Maybe_not]

Heinlein doesn't seem right wing to me, if I was looking at his views from a 2026 perspective, which wouldn't be fair, I would view him as center-left, with some regional twist.

But it's not so important, he's automatically a saint. Thanks to the fact that he wrote the ultimate time travel story.

[goaded]

He did invent the word grok, which was great until Musk ruined it.

[Sal_Monella]

Crime areas Lake Saint Louis, Philadelphia and Seattle should all enforce broken windows policing. I will leave it to you to figure out why that would help. You cannot ban violence and you will never ban guns.

[goaded]

I wish I hadn't left out the word "political" from the question.

Broken windows policing was not the magic key the right make it out to be. It coincided with a general reduction in crime across the country, probably due to a generation growing up not being poisoned by lead in the air they breathed.

[msc545]

Well, I voted to stop hurting people for obvious reasons, but obviously fascists aren't going to agree to that. That's part of their thing.

[darkcloud1945]

It would be better if you stopped spreading your lying bullshit that you always post to stir the shit you expound with every posy

[goaded]

What lie? Quote one.

[darkcloud1945]

Look back at your posts, and you will find all that you need

[goaded]

I didn't think you could come up with an example. Liar.

[darkcloud1945]

LMFAO

[goaded]

Then come up with a quote of me telling a lie on here. You've got 10 years of posts to choose from.

[darkcloud1945]

nah anyone who wants to can look up your lies. I am going to hang around laughing at your lies.

[goaded]

When you see one, let me know. You won't. And you know it.

[darkcloud1945]

When I see the next one, I will let you know. I expect to see one soon

[goaded]

It's been over two weeks. Do you have an example of a lie I've told yet?

I have one you told: "I expect to see one soon".

[darkcloud1945]

LMFAO!

[beefcakebradybatson]

COLLECT ABOUT FOUR-FIFTHS OF THE FREAKIN' GUNS !!!

[Godihateyou]

Letting us defend ourselves would reduce the violence. The only result of left wing violence in the last decade was left wing deaths. Mostly themselves in failed pathetic attempts

[goaded]

Defend yourself from whom?

[Godihateyou]

Violent left wing losers.

[goaded]

Who you're scared of, apparently. Sad snowflake.

[Godihateyou]

Can you try that again in English? I can't understand you suka blyet

[goaded]

You: "Letting us defend ourselves would reduce the violence."
Me: "Defend yourself from whom?"
You: "Violent left wing losers."
Me: "Who you're scared of, apparently. Sad snowflake."

In other words, apparently you feel the need to defend yourself from "failed pathetic" "Violent left wing losers", which says you're a pathetic coward. Got it now? Clear enough?

[Godihateyou]

I'm not afraid of left wing snowflakes. They are incompetent and weak. I love shooting them.

[jamesgoldman]

Follow the method the elites want, everyone in solitary confinement

[MrChinaski]

Peace, love and understanding.

[MrChinaski]

You've got 350 million people with practically nothing in common, a history of violence, widespread access to weapons, poor social safety nets and psychological treatment. Then you decay everything important that created US identity, exceptionalism, the rugged frontier, scientific leadership, the idea that everybody can get ahead, religion, social bowling clubs and community groups. Then you remove secure employment, access to health care and education. Then you see robber barons scooping up ever larger shares of national wealth. And you wonder why there is violence?

[Maybe_Maybe_not]

Please notice how the sneaky bastard above me tried to promote bowling.

[MrChinaski]

@Maybe_Maybe_not It was more to do with Putnam.

[msc545]

@MrChinaski thank you and it's a very nice summary of exactly why I want to get out of here as soon as I can. This entire place is not safe anymore.

[RavVid]

Broaden incitement laws?

[noohair]

Stop drinking the Kool-Aid...