WHAT
- Former U.S. President Donald J. Trump was shot at a rally in PA.
TRUMPS STATEMENT
“I want to thank The United States Secret Service, and all of Law Enforcement, for their rapid response on the shooting that just took place in Butler, Pennsylvania. Most importantly, I want to extend my condolences to the family of the person at the Rally who was killed, and also to the family of another person that was badly injured. It is incredible that such an act can take place in our Country. Nothing is known at this time about the shooter, who is now dead. I was shot with a bullet that pierced the upper part of my right ear. I knew immediately that something was wrong in that I heard a whizzing sound, shots, and immediately felt the bullet ripping through the skin. Much bleeding took place, so I realized then what was happening. GOD BLESS AMERICA!”
WHAT WE THINK WE KNOW SO FAR
- gunman is dead
- Trump “is fine”
- one attendee is dead
- another attendee is in critical condition
News Sources
- CNN - Trump rushed off stage after shooting at Pennsylvania rally
- AP News - Live updates: Shooting at Trump rally is being investigated as assassination attempt, AP sources say
- The Hill - George W. Bush condemns ‘cowardly attack’ at Trump rally
- Warren Sharp (@SharpFootball) on Xitter - video interview with witness who tried to warn police before shooting happened
- Sky News - Gunshots reportedly fired at Donald Trump rally - as former president rushed off stage (Article confirms one rally attendee dead)
- Reuters - Biden says he is grateful to hear Trump is safe, has been briefed on shooting
- OAlexanderDK on Xitter - The shooter was on a roof approximately 125m or 400ft from where Trump was standing.
- JakeMRosen on Xitter - An emergency room doctor I spoke with tried to save someone’s life in the crowd
That’s not a justification for more violence, two wrongs don’t make a right. He was wrong for doing what he did and this is wrong as well. This is because political violence in it’s entirety is wrong. Jesus, do people not have principles anymore? Seeing all the supposedly moral people turn into Q anon level conspiracy theorists who condone violence is depressing.
You’re right. But let me tell you all about the sympathy I have for him:
That’s about it.
Let us take this as a reminder for everyone concerned with their own safety in a fascist state.
Guns wont do shit for you unless you regularly practice your marksmanship and keep your equipment in good condition.
A fascist exercised and practiced marksmanship today, did you, dear reader?
That’s when you say I will happily read their obituary
I don’t have any sympathy for him either, but that’s still not a reason to abandon my principles and start cheering for political violence
Why do you keep saying that when I didn’t?
deleted by creator
I’m not cheering for political violence
I’m not saying that you are, I’m just pointing out that, in general, lack of sympathy doesn’t justify political violence. We’re in agreement here.
Tell me, should we have turned the other cheek during WWII? Two wrongs don’t make a right after all, right?
We didn’t join WWII because the Nazis were bad, we joined because Japan attacked Pearl Harbor and then Hitler declared war on the US.
Exactly, should’ve just turned the other cheek, right?
Really? You don’t realize that the US didn’t join a war that started in 1939 until 1941 when Japan bombed Pearl Harbor … so was only part of the war for less than 4 years?
Wow!
You inferred something about Nazis, and now what you’re saying makes no sense as a response to what I’ve been asking you.
I’ll put it more clearly so you can actually give an answer: When Japan bombed Pearl Harbor, you’re saying we should’ve turned the other cheek?
I think this poster is saying: “since you believe two wrongs don’t make a right, then when Japan bombed Pearl Harbor, the correct thing to do in your view would to turn the other cheek.”
No, I’m just pointing out that your comparison is flawed. We didn’t know about the Holocaust until the war was almost over. The Soviets were the first to discover and liberate the camps back in 1944 (too bad they ended up having their own brutal camps) and the Americans liberated the first camp they discovered (Ohrdruf) in April 1945… the war in Europe was over in a month. That’s when the then general Eisenhower ordered the American soldiers to find the other camps, free the captives, and take pictures of everything they came across so Nazi crimes can be thoroughly documented and the American public can be made aware of them.
My point is that we didn’t intervene in the war because of what the Nazis were doing like you seem to imply, we intervened because we got attacked and declared war on.
It wasn’t confirmed until the war was nearly over. But even before then we knew the Axis powers were slaughtering people while they conquered Europe.
Fair, but the situation is similar to what’s happening to Uyghurs in China right now. We know something is going on there, but it’s not exactly sufficient grounds to invade China and intervene.
Right, but China hasn’t invaded another country on top of the genocide.
I mean one could argue that Tibet is an invaded country, but that’s besides the point. The only way we would realistically intervene is if China decides to either invade an American ally like Taiwan, Japan, or South Korea or if they directly attack and declare war on the US proper. Even then, it would be quite a stretch for us to have soldiers reach western China, but if we did and if our soldiers found camps where people are imprisoned, then we would have a similar reaction to what we saw towards the end of WWII. However, until then, we don’t have sufficient grounds to invade a major world power.
technically two negatives multiplied does.
I didn’t say it was. You just put those words in my mouth.
A wrong makes a right if it prevents many many horrible wrongs in the future.
The ends don’t justify the means politics, that’s how you end up with terrorism, tyrannical governments, and atrocities. I’m all for bringing Trump to justice, but it has be done through civil and democratic means via the established criminal justice system. If Trump goes through trial and is found guilty, which has already happened for one of his crimes, then our criminal justice system will punish him accordingly. If the punishments aren’t deemed harsh enough then we reform our punitive laws. We can’t have self righteous assholes going on terrorism crusades assassinating political candidates they don’t like. That’s a sign of a failed state.
Tyrannical governments rise from apathy. The final governmental check is its people.
True, which is why now is the most important time to condemn political violence, get people politically active, and vote to keep the fascist wannabes out of power.
So you’re telling me conservatives will realize this has gone to far and tell everyone to remain calm and peaceful?
The reasonable conservatives have already jumped off ship a long time ago and are now mostly either apolitical, independent, disenfranchised Democrat, or still a minority Republican opposing Trump. The only ones left that support Trump are his cult, and they will never see reason. However, we can’t get rid them with violence. It’s like what America tried to do with the Taliban or Israel is trying to do now with Hamas or what Saudi Arabia has tried to do with the Houthis, you can’t use violence to get rid of ideologies. The way to get rid of ideologies is to make them irrelevant. This can happen either by defeating them in democratic elections or using their track records to delegitimatize them or ignoring them or providing better alternatives or whatever. Political violence will only fuel them, and that is something I don’t want to see.
Mhmm. Where exactly do you draw the line regarding use of force as a preventative measure?
When it’s used as a means to achieve power in a democracy. Normalizing violence is not okay in general, but especially during democratic elections, and this applies to everybody regardless of who does it.
Ikr!
deleted by creator
one wrong plus another wrong, generally seems to overthrow most rights throughout the history of man kind.
I’m not sure what to do with this information, but it’s present.
If by rights you mean you human rights then normalized widespread violence tends to do that, that’s the whole reason why tyranny isn’t exactly good.
if by wrongs you mean human wrongs, then i have no idea what you’re talking about.
What?
same, you and me both.
the word right has different meaning in different contexts, I assumed you were talking about human rights as in the legally protected privileges that are granted to people… idk wtf you’re talking about
unless the phrase “two wrongs don’t make a right” is referring to human rights, i was making an extension on that phrase.