Nora. This comes very close to saying you support this shooting. I don’t think you do but it is the suggestion. The rest of the column is great but I’m hesitating to share it because of the last couple of lines.
I'm going to think about that one ... in my mind, it's just identifying what the logic of this whole situation is. I don't support rightwing libertarian violence, the likes of which we saw on Saturday night. But I also think that we need to identify that it's the obvious result of an already violent political system -- which is an identification I tried to do here.
I don’t think it’s silly. I tend to agree. The last couple of lines could be interpreted as justification and kind of undermine the point as I see it which is that political violence is enacted thru policy and takes many unspoken/culturally validated forms.
That's the key point, yes, but mostly that violence that exposes this reality is all that the political class really cares about. Maybe that's the missing line.
Yes. That’s what I assumed. It is the hypocrisies that grate. I felt you were trying to open up the franchise about what we talk about when we talk about political violence. That’s the key takeaway for me. But the last lines could be seen to undermine the ethical orientation of your key insight.
There's no place for violence in politics - by definition.
I thought that "political science" 101 was that there are three classes of decision-making:
- "Scientific" decisions usually are controlled by the "science" of accounting. "Buy or lease?" Everybody agrees because the right answer can actually be proved.
- "Political" decisions are when people can't clearly agree one thing is best, and must compromise, reach agreement by discussion.
- If discussion FAILS, then the third, the default, is the decision goes to the winner of physical conflict.
When Mr. Trump stopped agreeing, when he did not agree that the decision-making system (election) was accepted, violence broke out immediately - politics having just failed.
Nora's point is of course that, having been peacefully elected, the winner of the politics is free to get down to applying State violence to (perceived) enemies abroad, and even troublesome citizens at home. In our names!
Nora's last line could have been that "The jumps from tender care for the candidates, to the cold shoulder for violence to others, is - how can I put it - head-spinning".
Fake “assassination”. The worst shot in the world could hit a big fat guy at 148yards. Crooks was a Repub- would he shoot their God? Why was that roof top unguarded? How did Crooks know it was unguarded? People called the cops and warned them he was up there with a rifle. the SS heard the calls. So why didn’t SS snipers whack the guy until AFTER he fired several shots???
Setup! Someone on the Trump team told Crooks to shoot up the stage, told him the SS woldn’t whack him, told him he wouldn’t be sent to prison. H starts shooting. You saw trump slap his ear. Blood cap like they use in movies!
Brilliant fake but still a fake. As trump expected the corporate media is telling the story HIS way.
Noble UK guests and asylum seekers are breaking out the hotdogs and marshmallows in Leeds, bringing families together united against their overbearing and unappreciative hosts
Nora. This comes very close to saying you support this shooting. I don’t think you do but it is the suggestion. The rest of the column is great but I’m hesitating to share it because of the last couple of lines.
I'm going to think about that one ... in my mind, it's just identifying what the logic of this whole situation is. I don't support rightwing libertarian violence, the likes of which we saw on Saturday night. But I also think that we need to identify that it's the obvious result of an already violent political system -- which is an identification I tried to do here.
Don’t be silly
Not silly just a little cautious.
I don’t think it’s silly. I tend to agree. The last couple of lines could be interpreted as justification and kind of undermine the point as I see it which is that political violence is enacted thru policy and takes many unspoken/culturally validated forms.
That's the key point, yes, but mostly that violence that exposes this reality is all that the political class really cares about. Maybe that's the missing line.
Yes. That’s what I assumed. It is the hypocrisies that grate. I felt you were trying to open up the franchise about what we talk about when we talk about political violence. That’s the key takeaway for me. But the last lines could be seen to undermine the ethical orientation of your key insight.
Go ahead and share it Judy, your moral gauge is not above Nora's, it is just about on par. So buddy up and go ahead.
There's no place for violence in politics - by definition.
I thought that "political science" 101 was that there are three classes of decision-making:
- "Scientific" decisions usually are controlled by the "science" of accounting. "Buy or lease?" Everybody agrees because the right answer can actually be proved.
- "Political" decisions are when people can't clearly agree one thing is best, and must compromise, reach agreement by discussion.
- If discussion FAILS, then the third, the default, is the decision goes to the winner of physical conflict.
When Mr. Trump stopped agreeing, when he did not agree that the decision-making system (election) was accepted, violence broke out immediately - politics having just failed.
Nora's point is of course that, having been peacefully elected, the winner of the politics is free to get down to applying State violence to (perceived) enemies abroad, and even troublesome citizens at home. In our names!
Nora's last line could have been that "The jumps from tender care for the candidates, to the cold shoulder for violence to others, is - how can I put it - head-spinning".
Fake “assassination”. The worst shot in the world could hit a big fat guy at 148yards. Crooks was a Repub- would he shoot their God? Why was that roof top unguarded? How did Crooks know it was unguarded? People called the cops and warned them he was up there with a rifle. the SS heard the calls. So why didn’t SS snipers whack the guy until AFTER he fired several shots???
Setup! Someone on the Trump team told Crooks to shoot up the stage, told him the SS woldn’t whack him, told him he wouldn’t be sent to prison. H starts shooting. You saw trump slap his ear. Blood cap like they use in movies!
Brilliant fake but still a fake. As trump expected the corporate media is telling the story HIS way.
For a good summer read:
"I Can't Erase All the Blood from my Mind"
Palestinian Armed Groups’ October 7 Assault on Israel
As published by Human Rights Watch (July 2024)
https://www.hrw.org/sites/default/files/media_2024/07/israel_palestine0724web_2.pdf
BREAKING:
Noble UK guests and asylum seekers are breaking out the hotdogs and marshmallows in Leeds, bringing families together united against their overbearing and unappreciative hosts
https://x.com/CilComLFC/status/1814045787472761246
Exactly