He’s cheered and praised violence against journalists and progressives many times before, so it shouldn’t be surprising if some of us are skeptical that he actually cares to oppose violence against journalists and progressives.
My thought is that there are crazy whackaloons all over the place, and no matter if this turns out to be a Trump supporter, a Trump opponent, Al Qaeda, or some random nut, it is unfortunate and should not be taken as the view of an entire political party.
I think it’s a little too convoluted for the right wing to set up a false flag operation pointed at the right wing. Let’s face it; the audience they’re aiming this at isn’t great at following a complex narrative.
Depends. If this turns out to be the Proud Boys, I’ve got no problem lumping their hero in with them.
Both Russia and the republicans are anti democratic at this moment.
Republicans and the RW have a “Projection” pattern. When they accuse it is always about their own actions.
All chaos helps and is supported by anti democratic forces: The russians for geo political reasons, and the Rs for venal reasons. It distracts from the actual bleaching of democratic processes.
If there is any argument that the dems did it, and it increases anti democracy then that is perfectly good enough reason to believe that the right could do it and blame them.
I hesitate to ask what you are referring to, but if it is simply about how he said that protesters should be roughed up a little bit before being thrown out, that is orders and orders of magnitude less than mailing pipe bombs to people. Cite that Trump has implied anything close to that?
as his supporters yell “LOCK HER UP”. Two years after the election.
Trump encourages his supporters to use violence.
You gonna run with that?
even “lock her up” is a LONG ways away from “send her a pipe bomb”. You get that, right?
Putting kids in concentration camps isn’t that much different in magnitude, though.
Second Amendment solutions anyone?
- eta - You get that right?
Bueller? Bueller?
So what? How does that affect my point? It’s a fact that he’s advocated for violence against progressives, and praised and celebrated violence against a journalist. With those facts in mind, it’s reasonable to believe that he doesn’t actually care about opposing violence against progressives and journalists. I’m sure that, politically, he recognizes that he needs to be seen as speaking out against bombings. But considering that he’s praised and celebrated violence against progressives and journalists, why isn’t it reasonable to believe that he’s, at best, indifferent to violence against progressives and journalists?
with 320 million people now in the US I am a bit surprised this does not happen more often. I guess there are not more cases since you have to be nuts and have technical skill.
Trump has emboldened the nuts. And just about anyone with an internet connection can make a bomb. Or build a house which is what I would prefer.
We don’t know who sent these devices. Or really even why. We do know that trump encourages violence. Why? I suspect it’s a power trip, and a hope that as long as he stays in office, he stays out of prison.
And of course, he’s a fucking moron that just want’s applause.
Not in the minds of numerous lunatics who infest society, and who are vulnerable to demagogues like Trump. Normal people may see some distinction, but normal people don’t chant for “locking up” someone without due process. Only a few of those may turn violent, but it only takes a few, and this is the prime breeding ground for it, and many already turned violent. Normal people aren’t incited by the kinds of rhetoric I mentioned in #28. But lunatics are, and there’s apparently a lot of them around.
That would seem like a weird choice, given that it’s completely not their thing. Their thing is to get drunk and then beat someone up in public.
It’s likely a psycho.
No, it is not. If you set someone up as Emmanuel Goldstein, people will start throwing stuff at that person.
For some reason, their leader felt compelled to shove a large buttplug up his ass on a live broadcast. So can we agree they might be a little unpredictable?
Sure, I have a link. No, I’m not kidding:
Trump recommended second amendment solutions to his political adversaries. Seeing as how “bear arms” apparently means any and all weapons to you second amendment folks, how exactly is sending a pipe bomb not explicitly following his directions.
Are there any actual quotes? I had not heard the false flag argument before seeing it here.
Could you, perhaps, be troubled to provide the quote that you are referring to?