1y ago

Trump flattened for talking about executing Biden before gun owners

www.rawstory.com Trump flattened for talking about executing Biden before gun owners

All three co-hosts of MSNBC's "The Weekend," along with former Donald Trump White House aide Sarah Matthews, pounced on Donald Trump for telling a raucous NRA crowd on Saturday that President Joe Biden deserves to be executed.During his speech before the gun owners in Texas, the former president tol...

You're viewing part of a thread.

Show Context

121 comments

Yes. I believe that is what I said.
- Okay.
  But why only go half-way?
  
  Because going all the way takes us back to caveman society.
  No system is perfect, and no system is equal, and most importantly, people in a system will adapt to take advantage of the system. That's why it's useless to go "all the way", the system is there to keep us from just clubbing each other over the head whenever we feel wronged. It's much better that we have a dynamic and living system that can respond to loopholes and attempts to thwart it. Incremental change is the way the system should react.
  It is a challenging question though. How do you afford the "little man" their right to appeal rulings, without giving the "big man" unlimited leeway to appeal and delay justice?
  
  Because going all the way takes us back to caveman society.
  Where did you get this? At the local Fascist Fortune Cookie store? Hollywood, maybe?
  Where is your evidence of this?
  How do you afford the “little man” their right to appeal rulings, without giving the “big man” unlimited leeway to appeal and delay justice?
  If you are unwilling to do away with the very systems that are designed to protect and enable the "big men" the answer is simple - you can't.
  
  Oh, I must be a fascist because I think that going all the way back means going to a time before organized society and a structured code of law? Is that really where your mind jumps to when someone disagrees with you? Oh, this person must be a fucking fascist because they think differently than I!
  Ad-hominems aside. How far back is "far back" enough for you that we could build a more just and equitable system? We talking Bill of Rights? Magna Carta? 10 commandments?
  
  organized society and a structured code of law?
  Where is the evidence that led you to conflate these two?
  Oh, this person must be a fucking fascist because they think differently than I!
  What else am I supposed to do when people regurgite fascist narratives? Assume the person doing the regurgitating is not beholden to fascist views?
  I assume this is the first time you've been exposed to the fact that "Law & Order" narratives have always been the narrative espoused by the fascist element inherent to the liberal nation state long before Mussolini even gave fascism a name?
  
  What else am I supposed to do when people regurgite fascist narratives?
  I have yet to see a fascist argue that every justice system has inherent inequality, and that the only way to fix it is to have a dynamic and living system than can respond to the changes in society around it. I don't think that is a fascist view. Fascist by definition put all authority in an immutable entity that rules with an iron fist with the sole purpose of benefiting one particular group of people.
  You might consider reading up on it a bit before you go start spreading it over everything that doesn't agree with your somehow very narrow yet ephemeral definition of a just society. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism
  Regardless, any talk at this point is unproductive unless you are willing to specify what in your mind, was the most recent equitable justice system in human history. You won't though, because you haven't thought about it that much, which is why you were offended by my caveman assertion.
  
  inherent inequality,
  As dictated by whom? You?
  I don’t think that is a fascist view.
  You think that endorsing the violence through which the many is subjugated for the safety and security of the few is not fascist?
  Fascist by definition
  Fascism doesn't have a definition, liberal. It isn't - and has never been - a consistent ideology that enables definition.
  Am I to assume that your understanding of fascism is as flawed, naive and downright cartoonish as the one your fellow liberals on here ceaselessly demonstrate? Aaaaand...
  You might consider reading up on... https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism
  ...I'll take that as a yes.
  Regardless, any talk at this point is unproductive
  What is the point of talking alternatives with those who has a vested interest in maintaining the violence of the status quo?
  which is why you were offended by my caveman assertion.
  Is that what offended me? It had nothing to do with your appeal to right-wing ahistoricity?
  
  Wow, you put a lot of time and effort in to useless drivel.
  inherent inequality,
  As dictated by whom? You?
  A system does not need someone to dictate inequality, there are plenty of naturally existing system that produce inequal results. I don't have to dictate shit to notice an inequitable system.
  I don’t think that is a fascist view.
  You think that endorsing the violence through which the many is subjugated for the safety and security of the few is not fascist?
  Textbook strawman there. At no point have I argued that a justice system should subjugate the many for the benefit of the few.
  Fascist by definition
  Fascism doesn’t have a definition, liberal. It isn’t - and has never been - a consistent ideology that enables definition.
  This may be news to you, but words have meaning, otherwise you can peanut butter your knuckle wolfsbane.
  Am I to assume that your understanding of fascism is as flawed, naive and downright cartoonish as the one your fellow liberals on here ceaselessly demonstrate? Aaaaand…
  Please, source your definiton for Fascism. I cited an established repository of knowledge, so far your only basis for the meaning of the word exists in the vapor between your ears.
  Regardless, any talk at this point is unproductive
  What is the point of talking alternatives with those who has a vested interest in maintaining the violence of the status quo?
  This is a reiteration of an already refuted strawman, and supporting evidence for my assertion on the productivity of the "dialogue".
  which is why you were offended by my caveman assertion.
  Is that what offended me? It had nothing to do with your appeal to right-wing ahistoricity?
  Didn't you just accuse me of being liberal twice in the same fucking post?
  Now, if you have any intention to seriously debate about justice system reform, please espouse your ideas on the last equitable social code that any segment of humanity has operated under in history. Otherwise, you'll have written a lot of pointless drivel, again, without actually adding anything to the conversation.
  
  Wow, you put a lot of time and effort in to useless drivel.
  Says the liberal after posting a reply that's wearing out my scroll button.
  A system does not need someone to dictate inequality,
  Yes. It actually does. Or do you think the US is fundamentally white supremacist by sheer coincidence?
  At no point have I argued that a justice system should subjugate the many for the benefit of the few.
  Of course not, liberal! You were simply arguing for an entirely superficial change to a (so called) "justice system" that subjugate the many for the benefit of the few. Totally nothing suspicious about that at all!
  but words have meaning
  Again, liberal... fascism doesn’t have a definition. It isn’t - and has never been - a consistent ideology that enables definition.
  We can play this game all night long - you can give me any "definition" of fascism you can find on the net, and I will easily use actual history to tear them into pieces with next-to-zero effort.
  Do you want to?
  Please, source your definiton for Fascism.
  Again, liberal... fascism doesn’t have a definition. It isn’t - and has never been - a consistent ideology that enables definition.
  Please state how many times I'm going to have to repeat myself before something begins to gel for you - it will really lubricate this conversation.
  Didn’t you just accuse me of being liberal twice in the same fucking post?
  Tell me you didn't know that liberalism is a right-wing ideology without telling me that you didn't know liberalism is a right-wing ideology. Have you never wondered why you are so eager to make excuses for your fascist brethren?
  No? Perhaps it's time to start.
  Now, if you have any intention to seriously debate about justice system reform,
  No, liberal - I will not debate "justice system reform" with you. I have no interest in "reforming" your precious status quo so that you can feel better about the violence that maintains your position of privilege within it.
  
  Another empty, meaningless reply.
  Go ahead, cite a history or source or example other than your own made up bullshit that backs up your claim that fascism is an undefinable ideology. You do understand that your claim is literally an oxymoron?
  While you're at it, find a political spectrum chart that puts liberal in the right wing. I checked about a dozen from different sources, and the closest I could find was a chart that set it dead center.
  You still haven't said what time in society you would go back to as a starting point for your equitable justice system. You were however offended that I said the last time we had a truly equitable existence was before society at large appeared. A reasonable person can conclude from this that...
  You have a time period in mind, but you don't want to state it because you know that I'll point out the holes in their justice system.
  Or...
  You haven't really thought about it, and you've made (4, I think?) long-winded posts dodging a simple point rather than admit that you can't think of such a time or society.
  Address the point, or tacitly admit you have no intent to debate in good faith and kindly fuck off.

121 comments