Fuck all this “let’s not celebrate the gruesome murder of a political opponent” bullshit, the man was a stochastic terrorist. Let’s dunk on the douchebag and piss on his grave together. I hope more fascists like him get it through the neck
Fuck all this “let’s not celebrate the gruesome murder of a political opponent” bullshit, the man was a stochastic terrorist. Let’s dunk on the douchebag and piss on his grave together. I hope more fascists like him get it through the neck
At most this moved the current administration’s timeline forward, and that is truly all.
It’s been less than a year and look at this place. National Guard in Chicago was to be their next escalation after troops in LA and DC didn’t provoke the reaction they’re seeking.
This administration has 100% been deliberately agitating for any kind of violent response to their increasingly fascist actions, to legitimize extraordinary executive powers and military rule among their base. Once their base believes that’s necessary, we are fucked.
This will almost certainly produce a violent response from the right, no disagreement there. But not one that wasn’t already guaranteed to come our way. There’s no amount of playing nice with fascists that ever gets them to stop or even slow down. This administration is elated to have this opportunity.
i dunno, maybe it’ll be the national guard in orem instead of chicago
I somehow doubt that’ll have the intended effect, and that would also be more consistent with the material reality than going to Chicago, AKA another point of doubt lol, but who knows?
I mean… ok, if it moves the timeline forward… it still does that.
Is that not more or less the same thing as ‘allows them to push harder’?
Beyond that quibble… pretty much totally agree, they’ve already done a lot of bad, and it probably was inevitable that some point or threshold… actual, targetted shooting back would occur.
Unfortunately… I think we may have now hit, or at least come a lot closer to the ‘we are fucked’ point… see my other comment with Trump’s response speech.
Yeah, I probably ought to have phrased that in a way that sounded less like disagreement. And I’m not eager to move the timeline forward and I’m aware of the harm that entails, so I shouldn’t trivialize it either.