DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Palus Politicus AK Man arrested for threatening SCOTUS Justices

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2024/09/19/supreme-court-threats-alaska-arrest/

But only 6 of them. I wonder which 6 it was.

That's the thing about it. Nobody has a monopoly on crazy.

It seems one side has a monopoly on ignoring the effect of violent rhetoric. That's the real "thing about it".

No one said there was.

What violent rhetoric are you talking about? There's a difference between facts and rhetoric. If you don't want to be called a threat to our democracy, don't prove you're a threat to our democracy.

Ahhh... Trump deserves all the violence.

It's gonna be a tough four years for you, Bubba.

He deserves being called a threat to democracy. He earned that all on his own. What happens afterwords is on the individual committing the act. And here all along you claimed to be the party of personal responsibility. Along with many other classic GOP values you have tossed that one out the window too.

And trump becoming president would have very little impact on me personally. My vote is for the poor, the women and the generations to come. Sometimes you can put the betterment of others above yourself. You should try that some time.

So, you're just going to ignore:

worse than Hitler
Nazi
fascist
dictator
must be stopped
must be eliminated
crosshairs

...and just rest on threat to democracy as a good excuse for shooting him?

I won't ignore that there are certain people saying those things. And at least some of those things shouldn't be being said. But pretending this is a one way street is certainly a false narrative.

And for someone speaking about context I think you'll find the context behind "he must be stopped" has been in reference to being elected president again. And trump did say he wanted to be dictator on day 1.

There is no "good excuse for shooting him". Refer back to what people decide to do rests on them and it's about personal responsibility. The rhetoric should be lessened by both sides. It's not as if democrats called for a rally, riled up a crowd at that very moment and and sent people there knowing they would commit violence. It's not as if they sat there watching them commit violence and stayed silent about it and did nothing to try and stop them for hours as it happened.

In this case the people you're pointing the finger at those who came out immediately and called for violence to end and that there was no place for this in politics. The other wants to pardon those who committed violent crimes over politics.

Let me guess, this isn't about context?

The rhetoric isn't a one way street -- ignoring the results of the rhetoric is a one way street.

Trump said he would be a dictator FOR ONE DAY. You know it, the whole world knows it. The media is still using that, and still using "bloodbath", to effectively incite violence toward him and act like they don't play a role in it.

Thanking you for proving my point with the perfect example, you've outdone yourself,

I see. I was the one who posted that he "wanted to be dictator on day 1".

Once again you focus on one side while totally ignoring the other. Thanks for proving my point. Nobody effectively incited violence toward him. It's not anyone's fault when crazy people do crazy things. At least that's what you claim when there's a school shooting but now your story is different.

Liar.

Never said anything like that about a school shooting. I would say we've reached the "throw $h*t, see what sticks" part of the day, but that started about four hours ago.

You would and do say a lot of things. And most of it is BS just like that was.