I’m not condoning what was done. It truly is awful what happened. However, you spout hateful, phobic, misogynistic, ableist rhetoric since the 2016 campaign? Maybe don’t be surprised.
Is this victim blaming?
Lol oh honey
No, this is Patrick.
No this is the find out stage.
Yes, but unironically
Fine, I guess the chicken came to roost 😔
However, you spout hateful, phobic, misogynistic, ableist rhetoric since the 2016 campaign?
2016? Motherfucker has been spouting hate as far back as we are willing to judge people for spouting hate.
No.
No the fuck we aren’t.
Go fuck yourself.
Sir, this is a meme community.
Wdym… civility demands this, so?
😭 😭😭😭😭😭😭😭😭😭😭😭😭😭😭😭😭😭😭😭
Get fucked with a barrel cactus.
With a saguaro; that way she can get a twofer.
lmao libs are gonna get us all killed.
Wdym… don’t ye see the bad in assassinating (ex-)president Trump…
Bruz, I cannogt believe the incivility of this radical leftist to say this shit, man! I thought this was like Reddit…
😭 😭😭😭😭😭😭😭😭😭😭😭😭😭😭😭😭😭😭😭
Fuck no
I understand…
😭 😭 😭 😭 😭 😭 😭 😭 😭 😭 😭 😭 😭 😭 😭
I’m not MAGA, but anyone that supports assasination as a tool of politics is a traitor to the constitution and a terrorist against the people and should be dealt with accordingly
Killing a traitor isn’t traitorous.
And even if it was, fuck the US. I’d gladly betray the nation for the sake of its people.
Dealt with accordingly? You mean like assassinated? Just for their political beliefs about assassination? Sounds pretty terroristic, man
Hm. The constitution you say.
Would you kill Hitler?
It wouldn’t have mattered if you kill Hitler. Someone else would have risen up and taken power, eventually kicking off WW2. The conditions in early 1930s Germany were too ripe not to have a demagogue take total power there. If you wanted to prevent those events from happening, you prevent the great depression, not kill some leader of a nation
True, someone else would have taken his place, but not immediately. If you can’t prevent the depression, you have to struggle on the ground.
Lmao
- Qasem Soleimani
Do you condemn the violence necessary to continue the existence of the United States?
You don’t have to be a MAGA worshiper to be a decent human being that doesn’t want someone to be killed by a random person, because of their beliefs or talking points. That being said… I want to hear that Trump died in a federal prison of natural causes.
Nah, violence is a tool, and if someone poses a genuine threat to democracy and can up the genocide, it’s understandable that people would try to stop them. If they get democratically elected and then commit a bunch of genocide, them getting popped is a consequence.
So you think Hitler didn’t deserve to die? That all the Nazi officers america brought here and gave government positions were deserving.
Godwin
Godwin thinks Trump Hitler comparisons are totally fair because Trump is a fascist looking to install a fascist regime in America. It’s a good read.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2023/12/20/godwins-law-trump-hitler-comparisons/
That’s cool, thank you for sending that!
I’m fact you have to not be a MAGA worshipper to be a decent human being. It’s a hateful ideology exclusively for hateful people.
Maga worshippers tend to be the exact opposite of decent human beings.
I was playing along with OP’s narrative.
Amen…
Troll gonna troll.
Regardless of what causes it or where he happens to be when it happens, I’m looking forward to his funeral.
No, I’m not.
Oh ogey…
Neither am I. MAGA asshats can go screw off. They want to destroy this country. I don’t condone assassination unless truly warranted (talking overt, doubtless genocide as an example), I sure as hell don’t commiserate with MAGA just because of this incident.
I will treat this with all the solemnity that Trump would if it was one of his political opponents
Indeed…
If I had a nickel every time a .world user says something I agree with I would have 2 nickels, which isn’t a lot but it’s weird it happened more than once.
The most perturbing question for the liberal is the question of violence. The liberal’s initial reaction to violence is to try to convince the oppressed that violence is an incorrect tactic, that violence will not work, that violence never accomplishes anything. The Europeans took America through violence and through violence they established the most powerful country in the world. Through violence they maintain the most powerful country in the world. It is absolutely absurd for one to say that violence never accomplishes anything.
Today power is defined by the amount of violence one can bring against one’s enemy — that is how you decide how powerful a country is; power is defined not by the number of people living in a country, it is not based on the amount of resources to be found in that country, it is not based upon the good will of the leaders or the majority of that people. When one talks about a powerful country, one is talking precisely about the amount of violence that that country can heap upon its enemy. We must be clear in our minds about that. Russia is a powerful country, not because there are so many millions of Russians but because Russia has great atomic strength, great atomic power, which of course is violence. America can unleash an infinite amount of violence, and that is the only way one considers America powerful. No one considers Vietnam powerful, because Vietnam cannot unleash the same amount of violence. Yet if one wanted to define power as the ability to do, it seems to me that Vietnam is much more powerful than the United States. But because we have been conditioned by Western thoughts today to equate power with violence, we tend to do that at all times, except when the oppressed begin to equate power with violence — then it becomes an “incorrect” equation.
From “The Pitfalls of Liberalism” by Kwame Ture
Lmao, indeed!
I’ve seen the author on political shows in the UK. She’s the worst kind of right wing hack and her opinions are worthless.
Gross. Absolutely gross.
