yea, but she’s a dem, so it’s allowed
It checks out. The double standard is written in crayon by the media.
From the guy who whines about Democrats inciting violence by calling him a threat to democracy after he tried to overturn an election too stay in power.
Were any shots fired?
Cause I’ve said it before, if no bullet is fired then it’s not assassination attempt, it’s just sparkling intimidation.
I thought this when I heard about the Manson chick was charged with attempting to shoot president Ford, when apparently it was an unloaded gun.
Interestingly, two women have been done for attempting to murder a president; both of which was against Ford within the same month within a small radius (maybe 100 miles).
God forbid women have hobbies 😭
Trad women can’t have hobbies. Jeez.
That’s unfair. They still have sex and barefoot-cooking.
True. Is punchbag a hobby too?
I guess if sex is, then sure. It’s basically the same thing, she just lays there and takes it. No real participation needed.
just stopping in to tag the internet winning comment of the day, oh hai
deleted by creator
It was concepts of an assassination attempt.
I think generally anything that is considered an attempted <whatever>, the judicial system takes into account the intent of the person who is being accused. If the intent was to assassinate Trump, and the person had everything they needed to do it, and would have done it if they had not been stopped, then a real attempt was made.
So the state has to prove that they would have done it not stopped and the defence has to prove the opposite (or something like that)?
Also republicans: shoot at Donald trump
And why is it his fellow republicans that are doing the shooting?
My wife is in the “they’re false-flag psyops” camp, whereas my position is “the ourobouros is eating its own tail.”
My condolences. I don’t think I could handle being married to a conspiracy theorist.
Turns out, neither could I!
Must be the purging of the RINOs I’ve heard so much about
I think the vast majority of his current supporters are self-hating and want to make others feel as badly about life as they do - without realizing it, of course.
I could see someone coming to resent him while still holding the Republican “deplorables” identity. He is functionally above the law. Still ripping people off. Still pretending to be something he’s not and will never be. And they still have crappy little lives.
But who knows? I’m just a rando.
We’ll never know the intent or reasons of the first shooter. It’ll be interesting once the second guy’s story comes out.
Which party is it that has a culture of solving your problems with violence?
This isn’t accurate. What they are saying is, “why isn’t anyone shooting Kamala Harris.”
Former president and current chair of the face-eating leopard party shocked at the amount of hungry cats patrolling around their mansion.
Fuck guns
Please do not, accidents happen and I don’tthink your gentials would like that.
STOP KINKSHAMING ME 😤
Sounds hazardous.
deleted by creator
No no no not like that. You’re supposed to let the tyrant win and then let them do all the tyrannical shit they said they’d do, then you buy your
cosplay outfitdefensive gear and get lit the fuck up by the military as is intended.You’re supposed to fight the tyrant’s troops, ergo other poors, not the important people!
Republicans don’t believe that they need guns to defend against tyranny. They think they need guns because they are mine, they are scared, fantasy fulfillment of defending property or killing people in public. The oligarchical overlords in the republican party believe in guns because the peasants will kill the undesirables that they pitched to fight each other. The guns were never meant to be turned on the upper class that control the world
Well yeah we all know that but… that’s what they say lol. “Defend against tyranny” sounds better than the truth. Even they’re reallydontwanna smart usethisword enough to know that.
All of the rights on the Bill of Rights are good and we should support them all. Case in point ^^
lmao good one
Guys, I hate to be controversial here, but maybe we can’t extrapolate anything valuable about politicians based on two incidents of attempted assassination. I don’t care about the opinions of these two crazy guys.
You are correct, it isn’t scientific to extrapolate from such a paucity of data. We will have to have more data points to test any hypothesis.
How many do we need?
If it becomes a democratic majority of the US who has attempted to assassinate the guy, it would be right to listen to them about who should be president. But not because of the assassination thing.
Unfortunately, US elections are determined by the assassinatorial college, so it would really boil down to a handful of swing assassins.
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
None of that! The voice of the people will not be denied, and only needs reason if it supports the popular view!
That said, this is one of the specific reasons to defend the second amendment, and I’m glad it’s being used appropriately.
Trump’s not a tyrant. He’s just a lil dick-tater.
😭😭😭😭😭😭
