Even as much as Presidents Bush and Obama have attempted to increase the powers of the Executive, and the Congress has failed to check them, how would this even work?
The word “quotes” is plural, amigo. Maybe you missed that. But now that I have cleared that up for you, knock yourself out. Nuance the shit out of us! Do whatever you have to do to convince us, with quotations, that thuggery (your word, remember) is in some way justified.
The answer is “no” to the first part, and there was nothing “unfair” about the question. And no, I don’t hold people responsible for things they don’t say.
It’s always been, and always will be, that it’s the times when someone pisses you off the most that are the times you most need a well-developed sense of ethics. It’s easy to be ethical when nothing is on the line.
Would assassinating him be okay with you? How about barring him from running for office? Eliminating his name from the ballot? Manipulating election results?
I take solace in the fact that your views are not representative of your comrades on the left.
I voted against Nixon in '68. Anno horribilis. Regretably, to do that I had to vote for Humphrey, but so it goes. My reaction to Nixon winning was entirely appropriate, I didn’t draw a sober breath for a week. Because my beloved country was doomed.
And yet, here we are. You don’t need a lot of faith, Bob, just a little. But you do need it. Peace.
Well, of course! Changing minds is often a question of seduction more than reason.
Never said it was justified. I much prefer that the words that come out of my mouth originate there, if that’s OK with you. I will say that it is “understandable” if that is not taken to mean “justifiable”.
If he could have reduced the threat of violence by opening his pie-intake orifice…shouldn’t he? Really, no? Well, OK. Duly noted.
Nobody said Bush was going to appoint himself dictator, he did not openly advocate for racism (quite the contrary, to his credit, he stressed that the US was not at war with Islam).
I of course would not assassinate Trump, but if someone did and I was selected for the jury, I’d have to excuse myself on grounds of being unable to vote for conviction.
A point of symantic order, then. You said he shared some responsibility for the violence, which means the thugs are not fully responsible. If they are not fully responsible then they have some justification. How could it be otherwise without “responsibility” being meaningless?
If there is no justification for the violence, then the perps have full responsibility.
Of course they did. Probably some on this board, but if not, on plenty of other places online.
People get really stupid sometimes. Some people are born that way, but some just cultivate it during election years.
The best way to combat a terrifying demagogue is by showing him to be ridiculous and beating him in the polls. This is doable. Killing him, harming him, beating his supporters, that isn’t who I am, and it’s not what I support. You may want to fight fire with fire. I’ll choose an extinguisher.
If there a difference between “fully” responsible and “exclusively” responsible? I think so, apparently you do not. Are you suggesting that the response would have been the same, regardless of anything Trump might have said, or not said? Well, OK. Duly noted.
Since I haven’t suggested that, no I am not suggesting it.
If the words were such that a reasonable person could expect to feel in imminent threat of harm, then no problem. For example: “Get out of my way, or I’ll shoot you where you stand [as he reaches into his coat pocket]”.