Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
provide[s] Donald Trump with a pretext for crushing dissent.
Donald doesn’t need a pretext. He literally sent the military to Chicago on a whim. Earlier this week. Before Charlie died.
Why are people so afraid of giving him a pretext? He killed ten people on a boat in the Caribbean for no apparent reason. A literal war crime.
The assassination of Charlie Kirk threatens to embolden the far right and provide Donald Trump with a pretext for crushing dissent.
Oh no, maybe he will use it as a pretext to declare war on a US city and name it after a WWII battle like Midway!
Or maybe his administration will claim that filming federal enforcement is violence!
Or maybe he will have US citizens detained by immigration enforcement based on racist profiling with the blessing of SCOTUS!
Or maybe they were going to manufacture a crisis and this isn't actually enabling anything they weren't already doing.
The assassination of Charlie Kirk threatens to embolden the far right
Fuck that, they just assassinated two Dems in Minnesota.
Why aren't people saying that and the rights reaction to it caused violence?
Why is the rights use of violence accepted as inevitable, but if anyone else does it, people pearl clutch and say it might make the right do what they're already doing?
And besides all that:
We dont know who fired the shot
Two trump voters have shot at trump, why is it a foregone conclusion a trump supporter wouldn't shoot at Charlie Kirk?
If you take the articles content — rather than it’s title — as a warning for what comes next, it’s accurate and reasonable. What the article fails to consider is that what comes next was always inevitable. Republicans have spent months trying to create violent backlash. They needed an escalation — any escalation — to justify the greater atrocities they have openly planned. Declaring vulnerable minorities as dangerous and mentally ill, declaring political opponents the same, imprisoning American citizens and enacting an ethnic-ideological Final Solution in the US.
Kirk’s assassination wasn’t the start of this and it’s not the end of it. He was a convenient sacrificial pawn for the Trump administration and the violent, oppressive, bloodthirsty, goose-stepping nazi party behind him. It will get worse. Much worse. And then it will get worse still. As of November 5, 2024, the US was damned to violent, horrific ends.
If you cannot fight for your very life and your loved ones, find a way out now. Time is not on your side.
Remember everyone: in the aftermath of a right wing fuckhead getting what they got coming, EVERYBODY is an establishment Democrat. All the "They go low, we go high" chanting along with "Any form of action is scary because it invites reprisals".
Fuckers, "reprisals" have already been happening. Maybe the marketing will change but the actions won't.
He preached exactly what happened to him.
No, it's absolutely not.
Someone said Jacobin is the Happy Meal of socialist publication but I think that's a slight against happy meals.
I wasn't sure if people were only posting it's worst takes, or it's really gotten that bad. But every Jacobin article I've seen on here for months has absolutely missed the mark.
Nah
