The Volokh Conspiracy
Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
Thoughts on the Assassination Attempt Against Trump
The attack deserves condemnation. But it should not obscure the evil of Trump himself, including his role in promoting political violence.

A few thoughts on yesterday's assassination attempt against Trump:
1. It should go without saying. But I condemn the attack. Violence is not the way to solve our political problems. It's worth remembering that Trump was not the only victim. A participant in the rally was killed, and two others wounded. The slain spectator, former firefighter Corey Comperatore, died bravely trying to shield his family. The shooting of these three people is even more reprehensible than that of Trump. No one deserves to die merely for attending a political rally. As for Trump, his wrongdoing should be dealt with through the legal and political system, not random violence.
It is nowhere near the same thing as actually getting shot at. But I have my own experiences with politically motivated death threats, including one from the man who later turned out to be "pipe bomber" Cesar Sayoc, a right-wing nativist. I do not want such things to continue spreading.
Can political assassination ever be justified? Maybe so. I think Fanny Kaplan was right to try to kill Lenin, and von Stauffenberg and others right to try to assassinate Hitler. But unlike Lenin and Hitler's subjects, we don't face an evil on the same scale, and - even more importantly - we still have available peaceful means of combating it.
2. Despite gaslighting to the contrary, there is no contradiction between condemning the attack and saying that Trump is an authoritarian, an enemy of fundamental liberal values, and a menace to democracy. The man tried to use force and fraud to stay in power after losing an election (promoting an insurrection in the process), threatens to use the power of government to punish political opponents, brutalized thousands of innocent children with his illegal family separation policy, and more. Pointing this out was and is entirely justified. Nothing that happened yesterday mitigates Trump's evil. He is no Hitler. But being a run-of-the-mill wannabe dictator is bad enough. Certainly enough to justify severe condemnation and harsh rhetoric.
3. It's worth noting that nearly all prominent Democrats, from President Biden on down, condemned yesterday's attack without reservation. By contrast, Trump and many of his allies defend and praise the January 6 attackers, and make light of other political violence by their supporters (e.g. - the attack on Nancy Pelosi's husband). For those keeping score, prominent Democrats - including Biden and Barack Obama also condemned the post-George Floyd riots (as did I at the time). There's plenty of awful people and politicians who abuse power in both major parties (e.g.- I have condemned Biden's repeated attempts to raid the treasury for his student loan forgiveness program). But when it comes to promoting and excusing political violence by their supporters, the two parties are not morally equivalent.
4. We now know the shooter was a registered Republican and also once donated $15 through Act Blue (a left-wing political fundraising group). This combination is less surprising than it might seem. Many people have unusual political views that don't neatly fit the left-right political spectrum. That's true of many perpetrators of political assassinations, as well. This guy may have had weird political motives that only make sense to him. Alternatively, he could have had a nonpolitical motive that was even weirder. Recall that John Hinckley (the man who almost killed Reagan), did it because he thought it would impress movie star Jodie Foster and persuade her to go out with him. We may learn more about the current shooter's motives in coming days. Until then, we should avoid unsupported claims about them.
5. I fear Trump will get a sympathy boost from this event. It may be only a couple percentage points in the upcoming election. But that could be decisive in a close contest. If so, it is even more imperative than before that the Democrats replace Biden with a stronger candidate.
6. Those who claim the Democrats and Biden were trying to get Trump killed in order to stay in power should recall that, if Trump were assassinated, the GOP could replace him with a more popular candidate, who would also get a sympathy boost from the assassination, while being free of much of Trump's negative baggage. That would actually increase the Republicans' odds of winning the election relative to a world where the attack never happened. Biden's narrow self-interest was better served by keeping Trump as his opponent. There are other problems with the conspiracy theory, as well. But this is a big one I have not seen mentioned elsewhere.
Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
It's sadly no surprise that Prof. Simon continues to bothsides political violence against conservatives and tone-police their speech in a one-sided and hypocritical way. I am not sure he should be glad of his company amongst the Tone Police.
Even if you assume the shooter is a Maga fanatic who for some unfathomable reason tried to kill his god king. There's still the MSM who's hatefest of trump got us to this point. millions of leftists mourning the shooter or claiming it was a setup. And the dei secret service that was at best criminally incompetent.
Talk about missing the forest for the tree.
I was thinking he might have been trying to impress Nicki Haley (along the lines of Hinckley).
That he is entitled to oppose President Trump’s campaign goes without saying. That he continues to perpetuate the lie that President Trump is an authoritarian danger to democracy is beyond the pale (on top of being just Rachel Maddow level ridiculous) and should cause his institution to issue a rebuke, or even question his tenure if he has it.
Cancel culture envy is so ugly.
It should be embarrassing to any institution to employ a professional academic who essentially perpetuates the same rhetoric that fueled the environment of progressive insanity that prevailed prior to last Saturday.
The convergent evolution from the hothouse right-wing unthinking attack dog to the hothouse left-wing unthinking attack dog is quite remarkable.
Says something sociological.
I’m sure that somehow makes sense in your broken little mind. Please don’t try to elaborate anymore. Too much idiocy this early in the day can be harmful to one’s health.
George W. Bush, Al Gore, John Kerry, Barak Obama, John McCain, Mitt Romney, Hilary Clinton, and Joe Biden never represented an existential threat. Had any of them been presented the opportunity of a guaranteed electoral victory at the cost of America surviving only as a broken republic, I have no doubt none would have taken it. There’s also no doubt that Donald Trump would have jumped at it in an instant—indeed, it remains his stated and demonstrated intent.
Donald Trump was and remains an existential threat to our nation. The demonstrable facts and logic are that on January 6th, 2021, a purposeful, planned assault on the Capitol triggered by Donald Trump, threatened our representative democracy’s free and fair elections, our constitutional republic, and our Constitution itself. If, without evidence and despite losing in every court, the loser of an election succeeds in simply refusing to accept the outcome, the Constitution is meaningless. Once it becomes routine that election candidates feel no societal obligation to accept the result, our constitutional republic is broken.
As a sitting President, Trump sought to prevent a successor chosen by the American people from taking office, tried to turn our elected representatives into sycophants pledging loyalty only to him, strove to replace our representative democracy, our Democratic Republic, with his own Trumpian Plutocracy. America prevailed, proving resilient enough to survive this persistent Presidential perfidy—this time. Yet Trump tried, to the best of his abilities. Do not give him credit for trying but failing. Do not allow him the benefit of that rehearsal of his next attempt.
Donald Trump, the would-be caudillo unfit to be the leader of a free people, must again be defeated in a free and fair election, and never again be allowed the opportunity to, as a sitting president, subvert American democracy.
This was all true last week, and it remains true today. And I am truly thankful the assassination attempt was unsuccessful—American Democracy cannot be preserved through assassination or mob violence. All such attempts by either side, only bring the destruction of our democratic republic nearer. Everyone serious about preserving our constitutional republic must unequivocally condemn all such terroristic violence and any threat of using it.
We also need to understand a different and at least as serious threat to the republic: government action intended to prevent anyone from exercising their 1st Amendment rights of speech identifying and condemning what they perceive as threats and dangers to the republic. A democratic society can also continue only if its people are free to expose such endangerment posed by the verifiable actions and demonstrated goals of those wishing to change our republic from a government of We the People, to an authoritarian autocracy or totalitarian Marxist controlled society
Such speech of a perceived threat to constitutional government presented by the election of either Donald Trump or Joe Biden to a second term, does not itself endanger constitutional freedoms, but is an exercise of those freedoms. It is the threat or use of violence to overturn the constitution, no matter the strength of your belief in perceived threats, that can bring our republic down.
From now through November (and after), the action we must all undertake to preserve our constitutional, democratic, representative republic, is to exercise the first, and stop the second.
The demonstrable facts and logic are that on January 6th, 2021, a purposeful, planned assault on the Capitol triggered by Donald Trump,
Nothing Trump did triggered that assault.
It's not a lie. It's fact.
That you like the incompetent, wannabe fascist shitgibbon doesn't change reality.
MAGAts whining about political violence against conservatives is a crock of hypocritical shit.
Ilya, you are a disgrace. With every article you write and post you share, your relevance diminishes. See yourself out.
not a helpful or intelligent comment
Yet true.... Right up there in the sub
"The attack deserves condemnation. But it should not obscure the evil of Trump himself, including his role in promoting political violence."
The evil of Trump himself? His role in promoting what? You have to have terminal TDS to even think that.
I am astonished at how pervasive TDS is.
Me too. The pervasive TDS of PRO-Trump supporters dwarfs the TDS of people who oppose him. It is disheartening to realize that literally tens of millions of people have the level of retardation that is required to actively support Trump the man (supporting his policies might be good or bad, but is almost always a political calculation one makes as an individual, and is an entirely different animal).
The pervasive TDS of PRO-Trump supporters dwarfs the TDS of people who oppose him.
People like you are going to be making psychiatrists rich for decades.
He's a populist with a cult of personality who talks about corruption of the blood and tried to steal an election.
He's been bad; he looks to plan on trying to be more effective at being bad next time.
A libertarian calling him evil.
He was once asked if he was a populist. He obviously wasn’t familiar with the word because he replied that yes, he is a popularist, and that he is very popular.
"tried to steal an election"
Not sure how pursuing resolution of grievances through the legal system = "trying to steal an election". I guess it's only bad when Trump does it, like everything else. Same response for anyone who references "fake electors", AKA the thing you're supposed to do to legally contest the results.
A sane, reasoned comment? Have I wandered onto the wrong site?
The stealing an election part would be an insurrection at the Capitol on January 6th and creating fake electors (who were fake as soon as all related legal cases were concluded but were pursued all the way to January 6th), not the legal challenges that he uniformly lost before then. If you can't tell the difference between legal and illegal methods, you're probably a Trump cultist.
Not sure how pursuing resolution of grievances through the legal system = “trying to steal an election”.
And if he stopped with his 61 bs legal challenges, each and every one falling flat on it's face, no one would be accusing him of that.
I guess it’s only bad when Trump does it, like everything else. Same response for anyone who references “fake electors”, AKA the thing you’re supposed to do to legally contest the results.
No. It's bad when:
- Even though you lost the legal challenges you call the Georgia secretary of state and start harassing them to find a way to simply declare you winner.
- You tell your VP he should ignore the results of the states and declare you winner, and when he refuses complain he's "too honest".
- You rile up a crowd you know is armed (and you explicitly ask security to remove the metal detectors when told) to march on the Capitol were the vote is happening. When the crowd invades the Capitol, looking for legislators and chanting "hang Mike Pence" you ignore please to speak out to stop them and instead suggest you agree with them. And even after this huge display of political violence you still defend the crowd and even promise them pardons.
That's what trying to steal an election looks like.
I'm not sure why you're lying about what Trump did to try to steal the 2020 election.
A cult of personality works with a person possessing charismatic authority and his followers viewing him as being virtuous, wise, etc. Yet millions of Trump’s own ardent supporters DON’T view him to be so—especially the evangelical Christian ones. They either think his heart is in the right place or that he's instrumentally valuable. This is demonstrably the case.
You don’t belong in a university, Somin. You’re a lying, evil piece of shit.
Go back to Russia. Better still, make the world a better place by killing yourself and your family.
Classy.
In its most virulent strain, Trump Derangement Syndrome results from a deadly combination of moral superiority and insecurity, resulting in the populist, emotionally-obsessive, resentment, envy, greed, fear, and rage that drives the Trump base to their cartoonish lust for a Caudillo, a powerful Strong Man leader to validate the greed, bullying, sexual abuse, racism, and xenophobia those like you once felt they had to hide.
We are not going to win over the TDS-infected Trump base. What we are doing is working through and fixing the flaws in our particular flavor of representative democracy that have prevented the voted will of the consistent majority of American citizens—the TDS-immune who reject the future Trump stands for—to be expressed in the principles and practices of our government.
just true
Why are you replying to me with that? I suspect you meant to direct that to Ilya's latest bout of equivocating?
It isn't even that, Ilya deserves to be DISBARRED for this one,
I'm assuming it's the VA bar and will look up & proceed in the morning.
It's a criminal offense, Ilya will be disbarred...
Hahahaha what? What could you possibly think is illegal here?
Enlighten us, Ed.
/
Dr. Ed 2, what rules of professional conduct do you claim that Professor Somin has violated? What criminal offense do you posit that he has committed?
Please be specific.
Still waiting, Dr. Ed 2.
I'd say this is ridiculous even for Ed....
But then no, this is pretty typical Ed.
What the ever living fuck are you talking about?
Or to put it less vulgarly: What you've just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.
"The attack deserves condemnation. But..."
It took Ilya exactly zero words to pivot from pretending to condemn an assassination attempt, to negating/excusing the assassination attempt by use of 'but'. It has never been unclear where his politics lie, and thus no shock that he views assassination as a means to his ends.
So irrelevant that you read the article and commented. Amazing!
Hear, Hear, Ilya! Much the same point was made by David Remnick in today's New Yorker. Trump has glorified, mocked, and encouraged violence against political opponents more than any recent politician. He actually got his crowd to laugh at Paul Pelosi, an elderly man whose skull was almost crushed by an intruder. Yuck, yuck!
Liar. Muted.
https://www.newyorker.com/news/daily-comment/a-nation-inflamed-trump-assassination-attempt
" Over and over, [Trump] has glorified brutality, whether it was the desirability of police throwing “thugs” into “the back of a paddy wagon” or a congressional candidate body-slamming a reporter because he dared to ask about health-care policy. (“Any guy that can do a body slam, he’s my type,” Trump said.) When he heard that MSNBC anchor Ali Velshi had been hit by a rubber bullet during a demonstration in the wake of the death of George Floyd, he called it “a beautiful sight.”
Our political rhetoric has always been hot. This tone policing is just hypocricy.
Trump Mocks Hammer Attack On Pelosi’s Husband In Incendiary Speech
You'd have to bury your head in the sand to be unaware of Trump promoting violence.
not a helpful or intelligent comment
Kamala and many other prominent Affirmative Action Democrats were encouraging the riots.
Paul Pelosi’s attack was a homosexual tryst gone bad. (as if they’ve ever gone ‘good’) that got spun and covered up as some politically motivated attack.
There's a video of the shooter on ASU campus going all "Ilya" and screaming he wants to cut the heads off of every Republican.
And of course you tried to make this out about you, your Trump Derangement is sickening and shameful.
When an elderly man is attacked in his home by someone looking to kidnap or kill his wife, it takes a special kind of despicable to make up a story that it was a homosexual tryst.
lol you fell for that nonsense cover story too
Mensa my assa.
Funny, if it had been a homosexual tryst, you'd think the defense would have mentioned it at the criminal trial. Had it been true, it absolutely would have gotten the defendant a shorter sentence.
Mensa my assa.
On the subject of your ass, your proctologist called. He found your brain.
Almost as bad as retconning it into "political violence"
Congratulations on maintaining your perfect record of being the dumbest commenter on VC. Keep up the good work.
"This combination is less surprising than it might seem" - Or one may be out of date.
As I stated on the prior thread - this guys is (was) most likely suffering from mental illness and had political leaning spanning a wide gammit of the political spectrum. In other word both far right and far left and at the same time neither far right or far left - just a nut case.
In summary dont read anything into his political leanings
this guys is (was) most likely suffering from mental illness and had political leaning spanning a wide gammit of the political spectrum.
Eminently plausible.
Unlikely he was mentally ill the FBI says there were no signs of mental illness, his parents say they had no clue.
A couple of interesting things:
There was a shooting team at his high school, and he didn't make the team because he wasn't that good of a shot.
He did a senior project on the Kennedy assassination.
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/trump-rally-shooter-classmate-normal-boy-rejected-from-high-school-rifle-team/
The parents had no clue. Their misfit loser son, still living with the parents, had at least one military-grade gun and explosive devices in a 1,000-square-foot home and the parents either didn’t know or didn’t care. Criminal charges seem warranted.
Thank God for the Second Amendment. Looking forward to the results of the search of the family home which will likely reveal that the entire family had enough firearms to start a small war.
OH, it was a "military grade" gun?
Why are you retarded?
I doubt Republicans will want anyone prosecuted. They like people who break into places they don't belong and shoot people. Eg Rittenhouse and Ashtray Babbitt
They like people who break into places they don’t belong and shoot people. Eg Rittenhouse and Ashtray Babbitt
You're not just a piece of shit...you're a dumb-as-a-box-of-rocks piece of shit.
Towering and empty outrage posting is Wuz's happy place.
Rittenhouse's dad lived in Kenosha, but sure. He also worked there.
He belonged there more than the imported pedophiles/protesters.
Rittenhouse's victims were all living in Wisconsin; Rittenhouse lived in Illinois.
Rittenhouse was the victim. They were the perps.
Yes yes. 20 minutes away from the place your dad lives and where you work is like another world.
Yeah and I cross a bridge on the way to work. When I cross it I go through three Counties. State lines work the same way. My niece lives in Pennsylvania. She grocery shops in Ohio. It's a five minute drive.
No wide gamut, he was a conservative republican. Registered, and based on people who knew him from school. He could not have made that donation to ActBlue as he was under 18 at the time.
You can contribute to candidates and political committees at age 17. It's a little more difficult but not impossible for a 17 year old to have a payment source that ActBlue can accept, but they take Venmo, and 17 year olds have to be able to use Venmo or Matt Gaetz wouldn't be able to pay underage women for sex.
The Take Back the Right racist rally in Charlottesville managed about 300 hardcore. The Capitol swarm involved more like 1,200 people, some of who just stood around. Violent Hamasnik campus rallies, attacks on Jewish-owned businesses, blocking of roads, and so on have attracted tens of thousands. And then there is BLM and various mayor's orders to police to stand down and let the violence fester, the Seattle anarchist "autonomous zone" supported by the Democratic mayor, people blocking highways with the cooperation of the local highway patrol on politician's orders, and so on. Trump is surely more of a problem re encouraging and tolerating violence than Biden is, but there sure seems to be a lot of political violence at the grassroots level on the left.
No one is saying the grassroots on both sides don't include a certain number of violent people willing to scorch the earth for their political goals. But the Democratic party leadership, including its presidential candidate, is publicly disavowing violence whereas the GOP has promised four years of revenge and retribution if it gets the White House back. The two are not morally equivalent.
Trump and his associates have been criminally prosecuted by elected officials who explicitly campaigned on punishing him for being Orange Man. There has been an unceasing campaign of lawfare since his first term. It’s too late for leftists to complain about that dynamic.
Not true. And you can’t prove otherwise.
Michael is a troll. Or, he's one of those TDS sufferers who is impervious to logic or rational thought.
Trying to defend Trump taking documents from the White House (not a huge deal, really), lying about having them (a bigger deal), returning some and deliberately holding on to others (even bigger of a deal), and actively trying to obstruct the investigation and destroy evidence (a huge deal) . . . it really rises to the shit-for-brains level to call this OPEN AND SHUT SET OF FACTS as akin to a political witch-hunt.
But that's what the pro-Trump group has. It's literally the only arrow in its quiver. It's more sad and pathetic than anything else.
TL:DR: Trump's defenders, "Who are you gonna believe, America? Us, or your lying eyes?"
https://www.usnews.com/news/politics/articles/2023-09-28/ny-attorney-general-letitia-james-has-a-long-history-of-fighting-trump-other-powerful-targets
https://edition.cnn.com/2021/12/20/politics/bragg-new-york-trump/index.html
Unlike you people, I can back up my claims.
You've certainly proved you can ignore evidence which doesn't support your claims.
Stated as you ignore the evidence he linked.
What makes you think I've ignored it?
Your claim was that Bragg "explicitly campaigned on punishing [Trump] for being Orange Man"
Your "proof" of that claim is a link to an article where *after* he was elected Bragg says that he would not shut down an ongoing investigation. ("...[Bragg] indicated he has no plans to disrupt the investigation he’s inheriting...")
So in your world, refusing to quash an investigation after an election is the same as campaigning on a promise to start an investigation?
No fan of Trump I, and his revenge-and-retribution tough-talk is one more reason to despise him. But how likely is he to follow through on it? We all recall the chants of "Lock her up!" during the 2016 campaign; but was there any actual attempt to mobilize the Justice Department against Clinton? The business with the private e-mail server, which was patently an attempt to evade public scrutiny and the FOIA, would've been ample justification for such a pursuit.
Is there any reason to believe that he'd actually follow through on his tough talk, once inaugurated? Or, as seems more likely to me, is his verbal bad-assery just a way to gratify the sentiments of his more thuggish followers?
The leader of the free world rolling corruption of the blood is itself pretty bad.
But yeah, Project 2025 has a bunch of his staffers on it and seems committed to not make the mistake of appointing institutionalists to positions this time, but instead personally loyal toadies.
And MAGA folks in plenty of statehouses have come into power, quite committed to the idea that no election won by Democrats is legitimate.
Not saying it'll come to pass, and you don't knock down institutions to save them, but between Trump, his advisors, and his supporters, there is a nontrivial existential threat here. And a larger treat of needless government immiseration of outgroups, which weakens one of the main threads of America's exceptionalism.
Why, yes, there was. See, e.g., https://apnews.com/article/060ca2399a744b4a9554dbd2ec276a90
Violent Hamasnik campus rallies, attacks on Jewish-owned businesses, blocking of roads, and so on have attracted tens of thousands.
Have they? Or are you conflating all demonstrators with violent subgroups and individuals?
It seems to be endemic on the right.
Yes, they have. https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/tens-of-thousands-have-joined-pro-palestinian-protests-across-the-united-states-experts-say-they-are-growing Going by Wikipedia's numbers (from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel%E2%80%93Hamas_war_protests_in_the_United_States), the average pro-Israel protest would have to be 470 times as large as the average pro-Hamas protest to keep the total attendance count at the 2100 of the later below 10,000.
You answer a question about whether there are growing "Violent rallies" and more "attacks on Jewish-owned businesses" with evidence that protests are growing. Those are not (necessarily) the same thing. From article the article *you* linked:
"generalizing that all of the protests are anti-Israeli or anti-Jewish is “a cheap shot,” Cortright said. “One can demonstrate against a violent attack against civilians by Israel while also condemning Hamas."
It's obvious David came here into an assassination thread to insert a little shill for his tribe. Which he did
Contrast that with the prior sentence: "The Capitol swarm involved more like 1,200 people, some of who just stood around. "
David takes a moment to comment that some of the rioters that tried to overthrow the election and "hang Mike Pence" were just standing around. Yet, he makes no similar admission for the people marching to protect innocent lives in Gaza; he merely labels them all as terrorism-supporters ("Hamasnik") and violent.
Also worth pointing out that people who put their bodies in front of moving cars to stop traffic are not being violent. We should be careful about labeling peaceful, civil disobedience as violence.
Seems pretty weird to count the numbers in specific events of nastiness on the right and then compare to the entire sum of political events on the left, some of which were violent. If we're going to try to count every pro-Palestine event on a college campus in your total, why aren't we counting actual Nazi demonstrations at Disney World or in Nashville?
I have no idea if there's more grassroots political violence on the left or the right, but I know this isn't an honest way to try to reckon it. And of course, as Professor Bernstein himself acknowledges, Democratic leaders actually speak out against it rather than encouraging it.
Spoiler alert.
https://www.csis.org/analysis/escalating-terrorism-problem-united-states
https://nij.ojp.gov/topics/articles/what-nij-research-tells-us-about-domestic-terrorism
You seem to be intentionally conflating non-violent protest with "political violence".
Trump poses many threats to our country: The right to choose, civil rights, and America's standing in the world.
But the great threat he poses is to our democracy.
If we lose that we lose everything.
----
Donald Trump is a genuine threat to this nation.
He's a threat to our freedom. He's a threat to our democracy. He's literally a threat to everything America stands for.
---
Donald Trump is the greatest threat to our democracy.
---
Donald Trump is a threat to our democracy, we cannot let him win. I'm in Madison, Wisconsin talking to folks about what's at stack in this election. (ominously) Tune in.
---
Another four years of Donald Trump is deadly serious. Project 2025 is deadly serious.
---
It's time to put Donald Trump in a bullseye.
---
Weird how these recent dangerous Biden quotes weren't mentioned by Ilya.
Why are any of those "dangerous?" (I get the argument re the last one. But that's as dumb as when liberals got their panties in a twist about the common political rhetoric of putting a sniper's scope on a Democrat's face. In context, it was a political point, not a threat, and I said so repeatedly at the time.
All the other ones are too stupid to respond to . . . please don't wet your bed over people making critical observations about really bad behavior done/said by Trump.
I think a sniper scope over the faces of Democratic politicians is worse than a poorly chosen metaphor like bullseye.
Your comments just keep getting stupider and stupider. How do you manage that?
Those were all Joe Biden quotes.
How can people go through life being so low-information?
Of course they are Biden quotes. We all understood that. I think you thought you were making a real point. But....
Jesus Ilya...
Less than 48 hours afterwards, you come out with this post. With the following lines?
"Can political assassination ever be justified? Maybe so."
"Trump's evil. He is no Hitler. But being a run-of-the-mill wannabe dictator is bad enough."
Sure, you attempt to hedge them. But some people don't read the hedges. They think Trump is "evil" and "political assassination" can be justified.
Less than 48 hours after an attempted assassination. Now is not the time for such comments that "political assassination can be justified". Even with the hedges.
Ilya,
Here's what you should've written.
1. Political violence is bad.
2. I disagree with Trump on many issues. I think Biden would be a better president, but simply disagreeing with someone does not mean they should be killed.
3. I've used overly harsh rhetoric in the past that can be misinterpreted and lead to actions I would not like to be taken. I will endeavor to moderate my rhetoric.
Armchair's real point:
3. "I've used harsh rhetoric in the past that some deluded fraction of the population could misinterpret. We should modulate our language, and stop writing and saying anything that might trigger one tenth of one percent of one percent of one percent of the population to do bad things. Although this will mean that all political candidates are, going forward, safe from receiving public criticism; the trade-off is worth it, as free speech is the least important of our core rights."
Armchair, I have no doubt that there are lots of people who will agree with your wish. I wish to publicly distance myself from it...you and I have wildly different values in this area, apparently.
sm811’s threshold for behavior change is apparently somewhere above 33 assassination attempts resulting from stochastic terrorism.
Armchair made his real point. Your interpretation is incorrect...
Public criticism is fine. "I don't like his policies, I think they are bad"
Calling someone "evil" repeatedly and "like Hitler" and other items...you're free to say that. It's a free country. However, some people WILL misinterpret that, and if you don't like how they will misinterpret it, perhaps you should reconsider your statements.
If you choose not to, well, we warned you what might happen, and those actions you did not want to be taken may be taken.
You’re like the neighbor who nitpicks the person across the street about one garbage can out of place while you ignore your own filthy side of the street. Clean up your own side first and then feel free to tsk tsk others.
If Parkinsonian Joe had been shot, the headline would be,
"Biden shot in head, CT-Scans show nothing"
And good thing Representative Benny Uncle Remus Thompson's Bill to pull "45"s Secret Service protection didn't pass. (I can't see Representative Remus without hearing "Sweet Georgia Brown" as background music)
We'll probably never find out the name of the Agent who terminated the Murderer, but I'll guarantee you he's a White guy, former US Military Sniper, you know, The Revolting Reverend Sandusky's "Bitter Klingers"
Frank
Representative Benny Uncle Remus Thompson??
Where is the outcry from those who are quick to bleat "racism" at any reference to Justice Clarence Uncle Thomas? Could it be that Frank Drackman doesn't express substance that need be avoided at all costs?
Didn't Limbaugh have a 'Barack the Magic Negro' song these hillbillies no doubt loved? We could invent our own here. How about 'Harlan the Uppity Chiggro'?
I've got him on mute, so you'll have to call him a fucking racist for me. Sorry.
Tone deaf, ignorant. It's hard to imagine a more useless post.
Trump had four years and barely got anything done. Four years to ignore courts, and yet, for some reason, he actually obeyed them and tried something else when they blocked him.
Meanwhile, we've had close to four years of Obama and Dr Jill pulling the puppet strings of a senile, doddering old man who likes ice cream, can't even read a teleprompter, who brags about ignoring the Supreme Court to transfer hundreds of billions of dollars of debt from rich students to taxpayers, and thinks DEI affirmative action hires are more important than competency.
Obama is the closest to a dictator in that crowd, running a virtual third term, and that's not even hand-grenade close. I'm surprised you didn't come out and actually whine that the shooter missed.
Whatever you're smoking...did you bring enough to share with the rest of us?
"not a helpful or intelligent comment"
But come now, if it's as easy to refute as you imply, then you're just too lazy to do so. Much simpler to toss out an uninspired insult you copied from somebody else.
Or perhaps you are being honest for a change and admitting you have no facts, no logic, nothing to counter my comment. I have to thank you for displaying your honesty so honestly.
. He actually got his crowd to laugh at Paul Pelosi, an elderly man whose skull was almost crushed by an intruder. Yuck, yuck!
Pelosi"s daughter said Rand Paul deserved to be attacked and have six ribs broke. The Pelosi family should get it's own violence condoning house in order.
I'm a Rand(y) Paul fan, (except for that stupid Mike Brady perm he insists on inflicting on the public) but he was dumping rubbage on his neighbors yard, I'd have just put sugar in his gas tank and slashed his tires, and maybe signed him up for some Kiddy Porn subscriptions, but his attack wasn't totally unprovoked
Frank
Weird how Ilya left that one out of his list. It's almost as if he's biased or something...
Don't vote for Pelosi's daughter?
Christine Pelosi is 58 years old; she was 54 at the time of the tweet in question. I don't think her mother is responsible for what she says anymore.
Alot of people in the 60's thought Malcolm the X's Assassination was "Justified", Martin Luther King jr's also.
As sound, intelligent, and informed comment as I've read on the events of the last 24+ hours.
“The attack deserves condemnation. But it should not obscure the evil of Trump himself, including his role in promoting political violence.”
Oct 7 deserves condemnation. But it should not obscure the evil of the State of Israel itself, including it's role in promoting anti Arab violence.
So Ilya thinks Hamas is right? Gotta say I am gobsmacked.
I'm not understanding your thought-process. Even assuming we accept your premise; it would lead to the conclusion that the State of Israel is wrong...NOT that Hamas is right.
#LogicFail
A very disturbing article. Full of misdirection and misinformation.
Obviously, you have decided to be part of the problem and not part of the cure.
He should resign.
People treating the shooter being a registered Republican as being indicative of anything are brainwashed. PA is a swing state and there are a million strategic reasons for someone to be registered to a party they aren't ideologically attached too. Additionally, there are ZERO strategic reasons to contribute funds to a political organization someone doesn't agree with. Finally, all the analysis of the shooter's party registration seems to miss the fact that HE TRIED TO ASSASSINATE TRUMP. I would say someone throwing their life away in an attempt to murder a politician speaks infinitely more than a party registration. I feel like I'm taking crazy pills even having to explain this.
People scrambling to shoehorn in some ideological blame at this early date are not looking very good.
This includes you and your Internet gumshoeing.
Let me guess, it somehow excludes you and your internet gumshoeing?
You literally have a comment in the other thread where you're harping on his party registration.
You filthy vile hypocrite.
Pointing out that a closed primary leads people to register to explicitly vote AGAINST someone is hardly ideological blame shifting you gibbering loon. Now Ilya and his Leftist screed is an attempt to shift blame away from all those that deserve it and instead focus it on the response to those destroying the West like himself.
Can't Change the fact he tried to assassinate Trump, and its hard to totally divorce the act from 8 years of rhetoric that Trump is Hitler.
But we can probably rule out acute mental illness, both of his parents are reportedly mental health professionals, and his father said he has no idea why he'd try to shoot Trump.
I often hear the pro-Trump TDS sufferers claim that they have had X number of years of "Trump is Hitler."
Can you point to some cites? Obviously, calling someone a fascist is not the same as calling someone a second Hitler. Obviously, pointing out that Person X uses similar language or similar imagery as Hitler is not the same as calling X a second Hitler.
It's my sense that "Liberals think (or, at least, claim) that Trump is the same as Hitler, or is as bad as Hitler was, or will be a second Hitler is his second term as President." is a strawman. But I'm prepared to be wrong about this. I'm not asking for a thousand cites, or even a hundred cites. Can you point to, say, 5 times where a regular liberal or Democrat, or a person in the mainstream media, actually equated Trump and Hitler? If I see that this is an actual ongoing narrative, then I'll apologize...and will loudly condemn it--as a Jew, I would find such casual alleged equivalencies to be repugnant.
Check the last thread (today in Supreme Court history), we gave numerous examples.
How about "Trump is an Existential Threat"?
I mean, that's just been four. And it kinda started off when a mob tried to disrupt the peaceful transfer of power and murder the Vice President, with Trump egging them on, and him making it clear that his only problem with said mob is that they weren't successful.
That kind of thing does stick with people.
Oh yeah, they tried to "murder the Vice President".
Are we going to take action based on protesters saying "Death to America!"? Coz that sounds more serious. Guess it depends on which direction you want to handwave.
Of course they called Trump Hitler. Democrats started calling Republican Presidential nominees "Hitler" with Dewey, they'd probably have started at it sooner, except that everybody would have been all "Who's Hitler?" They've done it for every candidate since.
Try doing a search for "Times people have compared Trump to Hitler". You'll even get Godwin saying 'It's OK in his case.'
I contributed to Nicky Haley's campaign, not because I wanted her to become President, but because I thought she was less awful than Trump. Just because you can't think of any reason to donate to a candidate you don't agree with doesn't mean that other people can't.
So you'd also donate to the KKK for such a reason or are you just downplaying the gap between Trump/Haley and Trump/ACT BLUE. Please provide receipts.
David Duke and a KKK newspaper endorsed Donald Trump, so it really wouldn't be the same thing as donating to a primary opponent of Donald Trump.
How can you say those who tried assassinate Hitler were in the right, but this guy was in the wrong for trying to assassinate Trump? For half his life he's heard that Trump is like Hitler, his supporters like Nazis, he's heard it from the media, pundits, ostensibly apolitical sites like Google, even some of the same prominent Democrats that condemn his actions.
Make no mistake, responsibility for the attack lies with the shooter and the shooter alone, but the rhetorical climate that produced him (and may well produce more like him) is a problem the rest of us created.
So your solution is that, to the extent someone really is "like Hitler", it should not be mentioned.
Those making the argument that any who truly think Trump is very bad, you should want him assassinated are saying quite about about themselves and their worldview.
Yes! Great concern trolling, everyone on the right should self-censor and not point out the violent rhetoric of the Left!!
Great call. Another great Sarcastr0 contribution! Historic!
Subconsciously, anyway.
Yeah, it's the whole "but without God to stop you from murdering, you would murder everyone you want to!" argument, ignoring that for normal people, that number is 0.
Disgraceful.
Joe Biden has a better moral compass than Ilya.
Which part?
The worst of the cesspool of Reason commenters is out tonight. Sometimes I think I should just leave.
I recommend taking a skip on the Open Thread tomorrow.
Ok
No point in getting myself aggravated
I recommend that all readers ignore all posts by Ilya Somin. There's no chance that they'll be getting impartial, carefully-researched-and-considered scholarly output.
Instead, they'll invariably be subjected to low-grade propaganda from a parochial ideologue who lacks the the wherewithal to even begin to critically examine his own dogmas and assumptions.
The man isn't qualified to be an academic, and it shows.
But we'll still have you to entertain us!
Don't make promises you don't intend to keep.
The minute he used the Democratic talking point word "Insurrection" he lost all credibility and anything else he had to say was irrelevant.
Correct.
"Insurrection: Defined under 18 U.S.C. § 2383, insurrection refers to any act of rising against the authority of the state or its laws. Legally, it's the violent uprising against governmental authority."
If even your own GOP supporters are fleeing the Capitol building to save themselves and the ones who cannot are barricading the doors to prevent a violent mob from preventing the peaceful transition of power (and also killing senior elected officials), you gotta do more work than label it a "talking point."
https://youtu.be/9EIeHq9P3q4
It represented as serious a threat to the United States as the declaration of an autonomous state in downtown Portland did.
I proposed at the time that the more serious panty-twisting be saved for an “insurrection” that had weapons, a plan, a map and supplies.
And yes, the CHAZ nation was even more ridiculous, but ultimately more people died.
Don't forget that Trump is evil. The urgent feeling that I have to say this now, today, again, isn't.
TDS
1. Yes, you do have TDS. In spades.
2. I tend to agree with you. When someone has been shot (no matter how lightly), I think it's an act of grace to give a week of nothing but, "Hoping for a quick and full recovery." Pointing out Trump's many (many many many) awful traits can wait for a while.*
*At the very least; we should hold off on saying mean (truthful!!!) things about him until the start of the Rep. Convention. That still means we should be holding off on negative comments for the weekend.
If you're criticizing Bwaaah for saying Trump is evil I agree; this isn't the time for such comments. If you're criticizing Ilya for responding to those who claim that the left caused the shooting by describing Trump as a threat to democracy I disagree; there's no way to respond to those accusations without explaining why that description is appropriate, while at the same time clarifying that the shooting is an inexcusable and wholly unjustifiable response to the threat posed by Trump.
If a wannabe authoritarian fascist gets shot at, that doesn't make him less of a wannabe fascist.
The right would love Trump getting shot at to be a reason for the Democratic party to shut up forever about what a threat Trump is to this country. This isn't particularly logical but that was never their strong suit.
Yeah but... the shooter apparently used an AR-15. Best case is the Democrats will use that to push common sense gun regulations through Congress.
Nutcase kid probably just wanted to get famous while committing "suicide by cop."
I appreciate the general tenor of the opening comment & from the remarks on the threads so far, some of the comments here are far from surprising.
President Biden responded to the attempt as he has in the past: with grace and with a strong opposition to political violence. Ditto lots of other Democrats.
As to "a stronger candidate," ever since the debate, he has in appearance after appearance shown how good of a candidate he has been, including a one-hour press conference where he slipped up once. I listened to it and it was impressive even if the standard troll responses were sneering.
It might be time just to accept he is the candidate & stop hoping for some deus ex machina including a black woman who will have her own troubles since we live in a racist and sexist society.
The poll numbers [and they are mixed; plus, in 2016, people were assured by the polls that Trump would lose] are partially based on ignorance of opposition to what Biden has done & what Trump stands for.
Some replacement candidate, which will feed Republican lies about Biden, would have similar problems in that sense.
One final data point on the results of Trump:
https://www.reuters.com/investigates/special-report/usa-election-judges-threats
The "both sides" stuff is b.s. The evidence is that it is right-wing violence that has been an uptick in recent years. Like someone in the last thread who was shown link after link about Republican responses, the evidence will be handwaved by some.
This event seems more likely a young unhinged person who needs attention by some perverted means though unlike a leading potential v.p. option, we shouldn't jump to conclusions.
It's pretty clear Republicans could not be happier somebody shot at their hero. It means they know longer feel obliged to respond to any actual criticism of Project 2025 or all the various crap that MAGA will bring down on our heads. Accurately pointing out that Trump is a thug and scoundrel is apparently now forbidden by the laws of martyrlogy.
It's pretty clear Democrats could not be happier somebody shot at their bête noir. It means they no longer feel obliged to respond to any actual questions about the Potato-in-Chief's mental acuity or all the various crap they have done to ruin the country over the last five years. Accurately pointing out Parkinsonism Joe's decrepitude is apparently now forbidden by the laws of "when Democrats screw up, the Republican response is the story".
Copying is your only response? And badly? You cannot, for example, point to any prominent Democrat displaying the level of triumphant glee now erupting from Congressional Republicans.
Here’s your hero’s expression of sympathy for Paul Pelosi by the way.
https://x.com/i/status/1812328254499647796
Copying is all the response your simpering concern trolling deserves. And you haven't pointed to any elected Republican exhibiting ANY "level of triumphant glee". I don't think you can.
Libertarians for the bureaucratic state!
Lol
Yeah, it was kind of weird to see articles crowing that the assassination attempt would probably give Trump a polling advantage. Within hours of the attempt.
Now sure, I wasn't scoping out news articles on Saturday, but seeing that kind of "him being a victim will help him win!" article before I ever saw a normal "Assassination attempt!" article was... odd.
Nobody believes your lies. After the 2020 summer of hate, the scoreboard is left-wing violence 100, right-wing violence 2.
Joe, do you really think Kamala's only problems as a presidential candidate stem from "America is a bad racist sexist country"??
Somin is the archetype of the faculty lounge know-nothing. His baby brain was broken by Trump. The great "libertarian" is, as per usual, rattling off left-wing talking points. He's been screeching about Trump since before his election in 2016, so his litany of complaints are just TDS rationalizations. (Search "Somin Trump" on this website and sort by date).
Thank goodness there aren't any more "kids in cages". Where are they now? Who knows? The Biden administration has lost track of 85,000 of them. Probably working in sweatshops and in the sex trade. Some of that "immigrant entrepreneurship" Somin is always prattling on about.
For all his paeans to the victims of Communism, he supports the most Stalinist administration in this country's history. No other administration has followed such a model of the command economy. Biden just came out in favor of national rent control for God's sake. I doubt even the Wilson administration amassed more political prisoners than the current one. And it has engaged in a program of censorship so extensive, it would make Orwell blush.
You will pardon those of us who don't have the luxury of sharing your piddling, petty concerns, tovarishch.
Disgraceful Somin. You are a failure, through and through.
There is nothing incongruous about believing simultaneously that:
No, there's nothing impossible about that stance, but Somin didn't quite manage it. He had to equivocate while condemning the assassination attempt.
It was more in "We still have other ways to deal with Trump, it's not yet time to kill him." territory, than unqualified condemnation.
Look, I'm not going to complain that he called Trump evil, outside of noting that insisting on doing it while complaining about an assassination attempt is beyond tacky. Trump IS evil, by normal standards. Just not impressively evil by Presidential standards.
For instance, how many wars did Trump start, again? Oh, yeah, zero. That's got to count pretty heavily when you're grading, if you really care about human lives, not just getting as many of them across our border as possible. Trump didn't drone any wedding parties, put out hit contracts on any American citizens, didn't even assist drug smuggling to get extra-legal funds to paramilitary forces he approved of. His death toll was penny ante by normal Presidential standards.
He just pursued popular policies Somin personally objects to, like enforcing the borders.
We grade politicians on a curve, and it's a pretty warped curve by the time you reach the Oval office. But Somin engages in quite a bit of grade inflation if he likes your immigration policy...
There's nothing in Somin's post like that.
"But unlike Lenin and Hitler's subjects, we don't face an evil on the same scale, and—even more importantly—we still have available peaceful means of combating it."
I read that as completely opposite of your claim. Plenty of commenters here love the idea of watering the tree of liberty with the blood of tyrants, but they like you are all in for the guy who has announced his intent to be a dictator. It's not the anti-Trump side talking about a civil war that will only be bloodless if those opposed to Trump surrender.
I read that as, "Once we run out of peaceful means, THEN you can shoot him."
The real question here is actually what counts as "running out of peaceful means"; Suppose Trump legitimately wins the election, and there aren't votes in Congress to impeach and convict him? Suppose he manages to get enough votes in Congress to legally start mass deportations of illegal aliens, and the Supreme court refuses to declare such unconstitutional?
Suppose that Somin's side has too little political support to win this fight democratically?
That would appear to exhaust the peaceful, legal means for opposing him, but it would also be him prevailing using peaceful, legal means.
This is where the rubber meets the road so far as I'm concerned: In a democracy there's a huge difference between an opponent who shuts down the legal processes, and an opponent who simply prevails under them. Between an opponent who takes the vote away, and an opponent who, frustratingly, wins those votes.
Where does Somin stand on this? Suppose that Trump just legitimately wins, on everything Somin opposes?
I read it as "once democracy is ended and a new Holocaust is underway, that might be the way to go". It would require an evil on the scale of Hitler and Lenin.
Brett is a talented conspiracy theorist and therefore can make any grouping of words into something nefarious and sinister. He sees danger around every corner when it comes to his perceived enemies. Everything is fine on his side, though…
Trump’s son-in-law is pals with someone who murdered an American journalist.
In Iraq and Syria alone, drone strikes launched against ISIS and other terrorist groups killed an estimated 13,400 civilians. During his administration.
https://airwars.org/research/civilian-deaths-by-us-president-in-iraq-and-syria/
His administration relaxed Obama-era rules of engagement designed to protect civilians. And once Joe Biden became president, drone strikes in Syria and Iraq virtually ended.
In 2017, Trump became the first US president to order an attack on the Syrian government, bombing an airfield in retaliation for chemical weapons strikes.
In 2018, he pulled out of the Iran nuclear deal and bombed Syrian government positions again.
Trump dramatically increased US airstrikes on Islamist groups in Somalia over Obama levels, and approved the sale of unguided “dumb” bombs to Saudi Arabia for use in Yemen (something the Obama administration blocked).
He also openly bragged about relaxing rules of engagement for bombings in Afghanistan, a policy that nearly doubled civilian casualties per year over the Bush- and Obama-era average.
(Biden completed the withdrawal of troops from Afghanistan in the face of criticism.)
In 2019, he withdrew from the Intermediate-range Nuclear Forces (INF) agreement designed to tamp down on nuclear tensions. Negotiations with Iran to reduce the threat of nuclear weapons were also blocked.
He supported dictators and authoritarians against U.S. values while opposing international negotiations and agreements that are the road to peace.
https://www.vox.com/23677654/trump-foreign-policy-revisionist-history-dove-anti-imperial
The “popular” policies he supported included ended basic control of a woman’s body, which a clear majority supports, with opposition even in areas strongly on his side. He twice was defeated in the popular votes by millions of people, the second time around by more than twice as many.
A border deal negotiated in part by a conservative Republican, which had broad support (one major opponent being some on the left), was blocked for his political advancement. And not the first time Republicans blocked a border deal while cynically using it as a political football.
The way to sanity is not to support chaos agents, official ones or unofficial. I won’t toss around the word “evil” since it seems more appropriate for religious conversations. But he is a menace and should be defeated in November.
"A border deal negotiated in part by a conservative Republican, which had broad support (one major opponent being some on the left), was blocked for his political advancement"
LOL! The usual Democratic border proposal with a couple of RINOs signing on so that they can call it "bipartisan". We see those every few years, no sane person takes them seriously, let alone pretends they're in any way conservative.
What a great opportunity to simply condemn political violence.
And you failed.
Congrats?
Thank you for your obligatory comment condemning the attack. Everything else you said was a tacit approval of the attempt, even going so far as to acknowledge that assassination can be justified. The rest of your commentary is limited to making the argument that Trump brought this on himself through his various "illegal acts" and suggests that perhaps it wasn't such a bad idea after all. I agree that you can condemn the attack and still oppose Trump as a candidate. However, the tone of your article was more of "too bad he missed." For that reason, I'm disappointed in this piece.
Even for Somin, the Trump hate is remarkable.
I am so disappointed with Professor’s Somin’s comments. I was hoping to read something akin the what I thought were fair and balanced comments published yesterday and today by the Editorial board for the Wall Street Journal. What is really sad and frightening is that there are more than a few people that think this assassination attempt was orchestrated by Trump himself. No matter how despicable one might think he is, he is not so diabolical that he would kill and injure his supporters just to get a leg up on this race. Shame Shame Same Prof Somin……
fair and balanced comments published yesterday and today by the Editorial board for the Wall Street Journal
So tilted, he doesn't know what straight looks like.
Here in the real world, Donald Trump would have his own daughter raped and murdered if he thought it would benefit him politically.
Does anybody find it funny that in under 24 hours we know the shooter's name, which political party he was registered under and that he made a $15 dollar donation to a political group?
By the way Professor, in Pennsylvania and probably several other States it is common for Democratic supporters to register as Republicans. The State and Local chapters of the Democrat Party actually encourage this. That way they get a say on what Republican candidate gets to run against them. During the 2022 election we actually had Democratic PAC's paying for ads favoring Dr. Oz.
So Professor are you just ignorant or are you a "useful idiot" for the Democrats?
I'm not shocked; People fail to realize the capacities of modern data processing, we're living in the Panopticon now.
It's interesting that they ID'd him using DNA; Had he used 23andMe?
That might be a reasonable explanation were it not for his own high school classmates describing him as a staunch conservative even when it isolated him from the rest of his class.
By the way, no, it isn't.
I think the tone of this post is unfortunate. It lacks moral clarity. And Ilya should do some self reflection. That he couldn't write point one, condemning political assassination in US politics, without having to throw in how Trump is bad is indicative of that at least to me.
Were it any other former president or candidate, you might be right. But it would be empty "thoughts and prayers" to do so in the case of Trump who has roughly 9 years of promising violent and illegal acts against people and groups that the right wing doesn't like.
Meh. I don't like Trump. But for all the norms violated (on both sides), I don't think anyone should be making excuses for assassination. And anything other than a simple condemnation IMO does that. "Assassination is wrong but Trump is bad because XYZ" mixes up the message.
What political violence?
Are you meaning violent burning of cities?
Starting insurrections labeled "autonomous zones"?
Attempted assassination of the president?
Attempted massacre of congressmen at a baseball game?
The closest thing on the right was the conspiracy to kidnap a governor, which was led and organized by FBI informants to the point that multiple people have questioned whether it would have happened at all without them.
I'm not pretending there is any monopoly on violence. Both sides have their crazies. However, one side has been consistently a lot more violent than the other in recent years
The attacks on Paul Pelosi, Gabrielle Giffords, Steve Scalise and Donald Trump were the work of crazy individuals.
The Whitmer kidnapping plan and the January 6th insurrection involved groups of conspirators.
That would be the right wing.
The only reason or that interpretation is repeated and deliberate refusal to designate left wing political violence as political.
For the most extreme example, the Nashville shooter was an act of terror on a church preschool because of the church's political positions on the LGBT community. Not only has the media refused to classify it either as terrorism or even as a political crime. However, there was an active attempt on multiple fronts to hide the evidence, including a documented manifesto stating the shooter's motivations.
Conveniently for Ben, every unknown motive must be left wing, and he'll make it up if necessary.
Police, that notably left wing group, found the Nashville shooter's "manifesto" to be "a series of rambling writings indicating no clear motive" and that "the killer did not write about specific political, religious or social issues".
More Communist revolution by any means necessary claptrap by "left libertarian" anti-American Leftist Ilya.
All that is really missing here for a full blown Ilya post is shoehorning in how this will negatively impact immigrants.
Thoughts on Ilya Somin's thoughts:
1. It is a strange "authoritarian" who seeks to reduce the size of government, reduce the government's impingements upon the population's individual freedoms, and to stop the government from trying to disarm the population. You should reconsider your initial premise.
2. Your blithe excusal of the whole new lawfare offensive against political opponents neglects to consider the ratchet effect in causes to leftwing adherents. When Trump was elected but not yet sworn in, there were paid ads taken out by Hollywood celebrities and others to convince Electoral College delegates to not vote for Trump. But that effort failed. Then the effort switched to hamstring Trump's presidency through two failed and baseless impeachment attempts. But that effort failed. Then there was the lawfare efforts and the constant drumbeat of "Trump is Hitler incarnate" and "Trump is an existential threat to democracy" designed to dissuade voters from voting for him. But those efforts failed as well. What's left for a mush-brained 20-year-old to do but to take the logical next step? YOU'VE PUSHED THIS ENVELOPE TO THIS POINT, NOT TRUMP. Own it.
3. Blaming Trump's rhetoric for Saturday's turn of events is victim blaming; no different than blaming a woman who was raped for wearing a too-short dress.
The only "authoritarianism" he's actually worried about is Trump enforcing immigration laws.
TDS ought to be in the DSM.
Despite gaslighting to the contrary, there is no contradiction between condemning the attack and saying that Trump is an authoritarian, an enemy of fundamental liberal values, and a menace to democracy.
No, there would not.
The man tried to use force and fraud to stay in power after losing an election (promoting an insurrection in the process), threatens to use the power of government to punish political opponents, brutalized thousands of innocent children with his illegal family separation policy, and more.
In no way did Trump use force.
And what he did was in just retaliation for the Dems launching a propaganda campaign that he colluded with the Russians®™ to steal the 2016 election, a campaign that hoodwinked Jimmy Carter.
How can retaliation be wrong?
And how would lying about a stolen election cause an insurrection?
As for separating families, police and prosecutors do that when they imprison people.
You're not that stupid, so you must be dishonest. Or maybe you are that stupid.
You seem to be afraid of the answer.
Jesus tap-dancing Christ. You people really are irreparably broken.
As usual with Somin I didn't bother reading past the subtitle.
"The attack deserves condemnation. But it should not obscure the evil of Trump himself, including his role in promoting political violence."
Well . . . what about the evil of Ilya Somin himself? Where does that fit in?
As usual ML didn't bother reading.
What did Lord Eddard Stark say about everything before the word BUT?
I don't know what in the world the author meant to produce with this profoundly conflicted opinion piece, but the end result has been to inflame passions, not to quell them. It certainly hasn't brought us closer together, but rather driven us further apart.
I reject this. I refuse to say that Trump is "evil", or that democracy is "at risk". You don't want to vote for him, fine. But casting moral aspersions is completely out of bounds for me. I don't know what's in Trump's heart, that's for God to decide.
I will say this: we still have time to step back from the edge. We don't need to go on the offensive. Stay calm, and carry on. We will get through this.
Donald Trump, the would-be caudillo unfit to be the leader of a free people, must again be defeated in a free and fair election, and thus never again be allowed the opportunity to, as a sitting president, subvert American democracy.
This was true last week, and it remains true today. And I am truly thankful the assassination attempt was unsuccessful—American Democracy cannot be preserved through assassination or mob violence. All such attempts against either side, only bring the destruction of our democratic republic nearer. Everyone serious about preserving our constitutional republic must unequivocally condemn all such terroristic violence and any threat of using it.
We also, however, need to understand a different and at least as serious threat to the republic—that posed by government action intended to prevent anyone from exercising their 1st Amendment rights of speech to identify and condemn what they perceive as threats and dangers. A democratic society lasts only as long as its people are free to advocate a position of such potential endangerment introduced through the verifiable actions and demonstrated goals of those wishing to change our republic from a government of We the People, to an authoritarian autocracy or a totalitarian Marxist controlled society.
Such speech of a perceived threat to constitutional government presented by the election of either Donald Trump or Joe Biden to a second term, does not itself endanger constitutional freedoms, but is an exercise of those freedoms. It is the threat or use of violence to overturn the constitution, no matter the strength of your belief in perceived threats, that can bring our republic down.
From now through November (and after), the action we must all undertake to preserve our constitutional, democratic, representative republic, is to exercise the first, and to stop the second.
"American Democracy cannot be preserved through assassination or mob violence. "
Well said. Now, how about selective and arbitrary use of the legal system to ensure only the "right" people get elected? Is that okay if the targeted politician is 'bad'??
The reality-based world of the rule of law means the rich and powerful don't get to escape any possibility of prosecution just because they're rich and powerful (even if we as a society can't make sure that always happens to the powerful and non-powerful, equally). It also mean you don't get to determine that your guy can't be guilty just because he's your guy.
I'll go with an open legal system, testimony under oath with legal consequences for lying, the Brady Rule, evidence collected and presented to a grand jury, charges filed, prosecuted and defended by skilled advocates of each side in a court of law, and the accused found liable or not liable (civil charges), innocent or guilty (criminal charges), by a jury of their peers who actually saw all the verifiable evidence you refuse to grant any possibility of existence.
You are what you do. We know what Trump does; he can't secretly be good in his heart while saying and doing evil stuff.
And look who’s being blamed now
Antisemites blame ‘the Jews’ for trying to kill Trump, install this more pro-Israel candidate
White supremacists immediately blamed “the Jews” for the attempted assassination Saturday of former president Donald Trump at a campaign rally, and called for revenge.
As I do not "reason" like a Reason/VC right-winger, I will not claim that these white supremacists represent all conservatives,
As I do not “reason”...
You could have just stopped there.
like a Reason/VC right-winger, I will not claim that these white supremacists represent all conservatives
So the point of citing the idiotic ravings of an ineffectual fringe group was...what, exactly?
Hey now, I've been told, since Columbine, that it's too soon to talk about gun violence, and that all we should offer are "thoughts and prayers".
And suggesting people change their violent rhetoric? Coming up with policy proposals that may decrease the odds of such things happening again? It's always "too soon".
So I must beg pardon, but you saying these things? Too soon. We should focus on thoughts and prayers, but change nothing.
Told by whom?
The same voices that tell Somin what to write.
What is to change?
The shooter was shot dead.
Are you implying that they got the wrong guy?
No, Crooks did not donate to Act Blue. The donation came from a man with the same name who was in his late 50s and lived in Pittsburgh. The shooter was 17 at the time of the donation, and the minimum age to donate is 18.
How do they verify age? Jeezus, have you tried to sell your extra 21st Chromosome on YouTube?
Frank
I've read a report suggesting that is not true. The address used for that donation was the kid's address. So for this allegation to be true, the 50s man in Pittsburgh would have had to have used the kid's address on his donation. Seems rather unlikely.
Some people insist that his Republican voter registration was part of a plot to disrupt the Republican primary, and the $15 donation to ActBlue when he was 17 was the true evidence of his radical leftism, but all the reports I've seen about people who knew Crooks indicate that he was "conservative" in every other way.
Note to all would-be assassins (of any persuasion): please leave a manifesto, so we don't have to go through this needless speculation about your motives after you've been shot dead. TIA.
“Replace Biden with a Stronger Candidate”????
You mean some one younger and less Demented? Like Bernie Sanders or Poke-a-Hontas?
My bad, Bernie’s older and Faux-a-Hontas is more Demented.
And “replace” is such a bad term, I mean JFK was “replaced” with LBJ, surely that’s not what you’re suggesting?
Frank
All this has me wondering when I stumbled into this alternate timeline where Trump had never been president for one term already and did not institute a police state or authoritarian control. How could I not notice that whole bit of history disappearing?
As a sitting president failing to gain the constitution’s mandated reapproval of the people, Donald Trump tried to block America’s previously unchallenged peaceful transfer of power, to nullify an election he unambiguously lost.
To convince his supporters the election would be stolen from them, for months before and after the election he incessantly repeated his Big Lie—that only a fictional universe unimaginably complex conspiracy among thousands of evil people committing massive fraud could block his proclaimed “win in landslide.”
President Trump tried but failed to convince the courts of the alternate facts foundational to his big lie. Exhausting all legal efforts to challenge the election, he tried extra-legal measures. He tried but failed to intimidate officials of several states into reversing their states’ election results. He failed to undermine the Justice Department, failed to enlist the help of the military, failed to persuade enough members of Congress to vote to overturn the election.
On January 6th, facing Congressional validation of his defeat and failing in all other areas, President Trump used his final rally as the focal point and culmination of his years-long campaign of ruthless, relentless, denialist propaganda. Running out of non-violent measures, he unleashed violent measures. The President of the United States goaded a mob of extremists primed by months of the big lie, to attempt a violent termination Congress’s formal count of electoral votes.
Yes, as much as you would like to disappear the historical record, it shows Trump as a sitting President sought to prevent a successor chosen by the American people from taking office, tried to turn our elected representatives into sycophants pledging loyalty only to him, strove to replace our democratic republic with his own Trumpian Plutocracy.
America prevailed, proving resilient enough to survive this persistent Presidential perfidy—this time. Yet Trump tried, to the best of his abilities. I do not give him credit for trying but failing. Do not allow him the benefit of lessons-learned from that rehearsal, in his next attempt.
As I said earlier, he must again be defeated in a free and fair election, and thus never again be allowed the opportunity to, as a sitting president, subvert American democracy.
To convince his supporters the election would be stolen from them, for months before and after the election he incessantly repeated his Big Lie—that only a fictional universe unimaginably complex conspiracy among thousands of evil people committing massive fraud could block his proclaimed “win in landslide.”
https://mtracey.medium.com/the-most-predictable-election-fraud-backlash-ever-4187ba31d430
Of course what happened subsequently was that even years after Trump had safely taken power, the corporate media’s top luminaries continuously used the phrase “hacked the election” to describe the purported actions of Russia on behalf of Trump in 2016. Supermajorities of Democratic voters came to believe not just that Russia “interfered” in the election, but directly installed Trump into power by tampering with voting machines. Now, though, journalists who fostered these blinkered beliefs will feign incredulity that their conduct could have contributed to widespread “doubt” as to the “legitimacy” of that election. And they’ll be aghast at any suggestion that this was inevitably going to generate yet another crazed anti-legitimization initiative in 2020.
Contrary to the author's claim of being a victim of the pipe bomber (who only sent non-working "bombs") he did not make the list: (quote) "According to a statement released by U.S. Attorney Geoffrey Berman in March, Sayoc's intended victims were former Vice President Joe Biden, Sen. Cory Booker, former CIA Director John Brennan, former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, CNN, Robert De Niro, Sen. Kamala Harris, former Attorney General Eric Holder, former President Barack Obama, George Soros, Thomas Steyer and Rep. Maxine Waters."
Most of the rest of his rant has as little truth as that claim.
Before posting what is at best a careless error and at worst deliberate misinformation, you may first want to read the words you criticize.
Note Somin did not claim to have received one of Sayoc’s pipe bombs, but merely a politically motivated Sayoc death threat unrelated to pipe bombs. I understood that on first reading. How could you not?
Indeed, Somin then linked to his 2018 VC post were he described that particular threat.
It takes a real lack of self-awareness not to realize most of your rants have as little truth as what you just posted.
What the hell is Ilya talking about? “[Trump] brutalized thousands of innocent children with his illegal family separation policy,”
That policy was put in place during the Obama Administration, and the reason it was done was because the Ninth Circuit ruled that you can not hold children in adult detention centers with their parents when they are awaiting deportation. The Court forced this policy on more than one administration
And when it comes to Trump “wielding political power against his enemies” let’s not forget that all through 2015-2016 Trump promised to lock Hillary Clinton up the moment he got into office, yet she remains completely free. Trump never even tried to actually deliver on that, he was shit talking… On the other hand the Democrats, the Biden Administration and the Justice Department have ALL ACTUALLY wielded their political power against Donald Trump. Setting aside January 6th, there’s no question at all the charges for paying a porn star to sign an N.D.A. as well as the confidential documents in Mar-A-Lago are undeniably acts of corrupt and petty lawfare, by people wielding their political power against a rival politician.
And the idea that Democrats are not at least equivalent to Republicans in their call for and condoning of political violence is preposterous. A recent Pew Research poll found that 10% of Americans said that, if all else fails, using violence to prevent Trump from ever returning to political office would be justifiable and many prominent Democrats have been outright praising and condoning the assassination attempt against Trump, including mainstream media figures like Keith Olbermann and prominent Democrats, like Senator Bennie Thompson.
I am not a Trump supporter… at all. He was a terrible President during his first term and I have no doubt he will be a terrible president again if he serves a second term. I have no reason whatsoever to defend either him or his supporters, except the fact that Ilya’s perception of Trump, his supporters, Democratic politicians and their supporters are so insanely disconnected from reality I feel obligated to defend the truth, even if that means defending someone like Trump who I have absolutely no respect or regard for in the slightest.