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.”
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.