I know they’re going to say it is only jokes. Fuck that. I get y’all want to be edgelords, but this is the most dangerous thing that has happened this century. I would be surprised now if we make it to the end of the year without some people getting assassinated for real, and it will target overwhelmingly the leftest end of the spectrum.
Example, example, example. There are others.
Y’all are on the precipice of finding out firsthand the difference between “OMG I’m so oppressed, the police are racist and I’m struggling to pay my bills, civil war y’all” and “OMG I’m so oppressed, a gang of big violent fuckers with bats and boots and the support of the government just attacked my whole community, seriously hurt me, and burned part of my house down. They told us if they find us here tomorrow, they’ll kill us.”
https://www.archives.gov/electoral-college/2016
Reforming the system is acceptable, using assassinations to get the outcomes you want is destroying the system entirely, and not replacing it with a better system, replacing it with worse levels of authoritarian violence.
If you simply want to win, and you have no principles about how you get there, you have no business in governance. I’d rather be led by somebody who is wrong but guided by principles then somebody with no principles.
If you can’t click on the link I can’t help you.
We’re having a good conversation, you’re saying assassinations are good, I’m saying assassinations are bad.
I think you’re advocating for a worse world, and I hope your life gets to a better place, where you do not wish the unlawful death of other people who inconvenience your worldview. That’s a dark way to live.
So, political assassinations are when someone tries to kill a leader or important person in government because they disagree with them or their ideas. But even if we really don’t like what a leader is doing, it’s still not right to hurt them or anyone else.
Here are a few reasons why political assassinations are immoral:
Hurting others is wrong: It’s important to treat others the way we want to be treated. We shouldn’t hurt people, even if we think it’s for a good reason. There are better ways to solve our problems without harming others.
It doesn’t fix the problem: Killing a leader doesn’t automatically make things better. Sometimes, it can even make things worse! There might be more fighting and unrest, and the new leader might not be any better than the old one.
We should respect others’ rights: Every person has the right to live their life safely and freely. Assassinations take that right away from someone, and that’s not fair.
There are better ways to make change: If we’re unhappy with how things are going, we can talk about it, protest peacefully, or vote for someone new. These are better ways to create change and make our voices heard without hurting others.
So, remember, it’s always important to be kind, respect others, and find peaceful solutions to our problems. Assassinations are never the answer.
In the 2016 US presidential election, two main methods were used to determine the winner: the popular vote and the electoral college. Hillary Clinton won the popular vote, meaning she received more total votes from American citizens across the country. However, Donald Trump won the electoral college, which assigns a certain number of electoral votes to each state based on its population. Trump’s electoral vote count was higher than Clinton’s, making him the president-elect.
Political assassinations are not the right way to address any perceived problems for several reasons:
They contradict democratic principles: In a democratic system, issues are typically resolved through dialogue, debate, and voting. Assassinating a political leader goes against these principles and can lead to instability and violence.
There’s no guarantee of a better outcome: Even if a leader is assassinated, there’s no assurance that the next leader will be more suitable or that the issues will be resolved. In fact, assassinations can often create more problems and divisions within a country.
They erode trust in the system: Assassinations can cause people to lose trust in their government and the democratic process. This can lead to further unrest and instability, making it more challenging to address the underlying issues.
In the context of the 2016 presidential election, an assassination of either candidate would have gone against democratic principles, potentially caused more problems, and undermined trust in the system. It’s essential to engage in constructive dialogue, respect the democratic process, and work towards positive change within the existing framework.
An assassination would not have changed the electoral college system itself. The electoral college is a part of the United States Constitution and the way electoral votes are distributed among the states. It is an established system for electing the President and Vice President of the United States.
An assassination would not alter the number of electoral votes allocated to each state or the process by which those votes are cast and counted. However, the aftermath of an assassination could significantly impact the political climate, potentially influencing the public’s perception of the candidates and their parties.
That being said, resorting to political assassinations is never an appropriate solution to address perceived problems. It is essential to engage in constructive dialogue, respect the democratic process, and work towards positive change within the existing framework.
I find this entire chain of discussion to have been intellectually dishonest. If my debate partner is unwilling to explicitly make their stance of pro assassination, and only hides in the implied support of it, then they are being intellectually dishonest with us, and perhaps even themselves.
You have to have principles if you want to lead a virtuous Life.