Armed Polite Society
Main Forums => Politics => Topic started by: Pb on June 10, 2022, 03:12:19 PM
-
This is a very disturbing poll. Large minorities of younger people (<50 years) are supportive of the concept of “assassinating a politician who is harming our country or democracy"…especially younger Democratic men…. and younger Republican women for some reason.
The contrast with older people (50+) is extreme. Older men are the least supportive of assassinations, even less than older women.
What do you all think?
(https://www.americanthinker.com/images/bucket/2022-06/238520_5_.jpg)
https://twitter.com/VinceCoglianese/status/1534583098519715843
-
The party of John Wilkes Booth showing its true colors?
-
I think it's a symptom of folks, and especially the media, having to make everything into an extreme to get the clicks and money from an increasingly numb to nuance society.
The basis of the question isn't unthinkable. Certainly there are leaders, even elected ones, that should have been assassinated for the good of the world early in their careers. Violence can be an effective and moral tool against tyranny and injustice.
The problem comes when you start thinking every difference of political opinion makes the other guy Hitler or Stalin. Then it get's harder to make rational choices about when politcal violence is actually called for.
I look at the historical records of Stalin's purges, or Pol Pot's killing fields, and I wonder how folks compare that to disagreements about health insurance, inflation, or yes, even which week an abortion should be allowed. People have no perspective anymore. I'm not even sure I do.
So the real question in my mind is not whether or not assassination is ever OK, but when it becomes needed.
-
dogmush is exactly right.
That said, I think the phrasing of the question "harming our country or democracy" is a bit tame to bring on the assassination. There isn't a President that I can recall that didn't meet that definition to some extent or another. Yeah, even your favorite whoever that might be. You'd go through a lot of bodies before you'd find any politician who didn't.
-
So the real question in my mind is not whether or not assassination is ever OK, but when it becomes needed.
The problem with that is by the time there’s broad consensus for such a remedy it’s far to late.
-
Hell, the only politicians that shouldn't be assassinated are the ones that ARE harming democracy. Democracy is a pile of rubbish, worth every bit as much as the vote of the least educated and most irrational individual in the electorate.
Empowering democracy just makes those orange stripes that much more dangerous.
-
A hypothetical Pol Pot, sure...
BUT
There are no politicians in American history that I think should be assassinated; there are countless ones that have and continue to harm our country.
-
The party of John Wilkes Booth showing its true colors?
The difference between the parties is not large.
-
The problem with that is by the time there’s broad consensus for such a remedy it’s far to late.
If there is a consensus, then why is the politicians still in office? Perhaps there is not a consensus outside their little internet bubble.
If they really want to see more people think it is a good idea, keep cheating on elections. When the majority of people no longer believe their vote counts for anything, their perspective might change.
-
Hell, the only politicians that shouldn't be assassinated are the ones that ARE harming democracy. Democracy is a pile of rubbish, worth every bit as much as the vote of the least educated and most irrational individual in the electorate.
Empowering democracy just makes those orange stripes that much more dangerous.
Yeah not crazy about mob rule myself.
-
I think it was Correia that characterized use of violence as a switch for conservatives, vs a dial for marxists. Sounds like those idiots are intent on ditching the dial and flipping the switch.
-
A hypothetical Pol Pot, sure...
BUT
There are no politicians in American history that I think should be assassinated; there are countless ones that have and continue to harm our country.
Hypothetically, off the top of my head: I'm sure there were a couple during reconstruction that were drafting the Jim Crow laws, whomever came up with the idea to put Americans in camps during WWII, the architects of the early Indian Reservation system. I could come up with others.
-
So this large group of young people who approve of assassination as a viable method of political change, I wonder if it's the same people who don't think you should be allowed to have a gun?
That aspect aside, I doubt the poll phrased it in quite the same way as the results are presented. I find it hard to believe that roughly 40 percent of young people approve of assassination in general.
-
Hypothetically, off the top of my head: I'm sure there were a couple during reconstruction that were drafting the Jim Crow laws, whomever came up with the idea to put Americans in camps during WWII, the architects of the early Indian Reservation system. I could come up with others.
How about the guy who gave the order to use goons with guns as tax collectors during the Whiskey Rebellion? (Extra credit if you can name him without google's help . . . ;) )
Seriously, this is still the USA, not some lousy banana republic. Political assassination ought NEVER become a mechanism for change as long as we're still a Constitutional Republic.
Funny how it's the lefties who seem to be comfortable with the idea . . .
-
Hell, the only politicians that shouldn't be assassinated are the ones that ARE harming democracy. Democracy is a pile of rubbish, worth every bit as much as the vote of the least educated and most irrational individual in the electorate.
Empowering democracy just makes those orange stripes that much more dangerous.
As even the most pedantic among us know, most people colloquially use that term to refer to a system that grants electoral selection of a subset of decision makers by the people. Vanishingly few intend it to literally mean every person votes for every single issue.
-
As even the most pedantic among us know, most people colloquially use that term to refer to a system that grants electoral selection of a subset of decision makers by the people. Vanishingly few intend it to literally mean every person votes for every single issue.
Yeah, but you get extra 'Murica points for ranting about republics vs democracies every time there's a casual mention of "democracy."
-
Who is running the pool for the start date on civil war 2: electric boogaloo
-
Who is running the pool for the start date on civil war 2: electric boogaloo
The ones in the Hawaiian shirts.
-
Seriously, this is still the USA, not some lousy banana republic. Political assassination ought NEVER become a mechanism for change as long as we're still a Constitutional Republic.
So as long as the government is still restrained by a strong Constitution, and doesn't violate the rights of it's citizens, and supreme power is held by the people, and exercised through their representatives that are picked in fair and open elections, no one need be shot.
Can't argue with that.....
-
So as long as the government is still restrained by a strong Constitution, and doesn't violate the rights of it's citizens, and supreme power is held by the people, and exercised through their representatives that are picked in fair and open elections, no one need be shot.
Can't argue with that.....
Ummmm…. About that list …
-
Ummmm…. About that list …
Yeah, beat me to it.
-
As even the most pedantic among us know, most people colloquially use that term to refer to a system that grants electoral selection of a subset of decision makers by the people. Vanishingly few intend it to literally mean every person votes for every single issue.
A considerably large minority, which is fast approaching a majority, use it canonically with the intent of subverting Republic style representation and absolute rights, in favor of mob rule. Precision in language carries precision in political theory, philosophy, or faith.
"Words offer the means to meaning; and for those who will listen, the enunciation of truth."
-
The primary things that need to be done is 3 fold. 1. We need an immigration policy that has a way of vetting immigrants.
2. Election counting has to be secured in some fashion with only American citizens allowed to vote. 3. Term limits for congress critters and federal judges including SCOTUS and a *$250.00 maximum year contribution to political candidates from ANY and EVERY source including the candidate themselves. (*that makes them more accountable to regular citizens rather than billionaires, millionaires and money laundering campaign organizations.)
-
The US government is literally using 1984 as an instruction manual, that violence switch is gonna get flipped.
We saw in 2020 that the ballot box doesn’t matter anymore, we have seen for many years that the jury box is heavily stacked against you, and the soap box is under constant, open attack and has been for several years now.
APAB.
-
A considerably large minority, which is fast approaching a majority, use it canonically with the intent of subverting Republic style representation and absolute rights, in favor of mob rule.
A very small group may use it that way, but most people who use the term are simply referring to participation in the electoral process and the accountability of elected politicians to the people.
Precision in language carries precision in political theory, philosophy, or faith.
With respect, thinking back to some discussions here on APS, I would note that it is possible to be precisely wrong.
-
They polled all of 1500 people. That is much too tiny to be representative of the country as a whole, or even any specific state, and many cities.
-
The US government is literally using 1984 as an instruction manual, that violence switch is gonna get flipped.
We saw in 2020 that the ballot box doesn’t matter anymore, we have seen for many years that the jury box is heavily stacked against you, and the soap box is under constant, open attack and has been for several years now.
APAB.
This.
The whole stupid thing only works if we all agree and believe it does. I don't.
-
They polled all of 1500 people. That is much too tiny to be representative of the country as a whole, or even any specific state, and many cities.
They’d need to poll at least that many in each political/sex category they broke the data into. Probably more like triple that.
-
The left thinks they can do it. I think that they want to do it.
The right knows they can do it. They have thus far not done it.
(I live about 20 miles from where the guy who tried to shoot up that Congressional baseball practice lived)
-
They polled all of 1500 people. That is much too tiny to be representative of the country as a whole, or even any specific state, and many cities.
IMO, that is why I think many polls are deliberately biased. It wouldn't take much effort to tailor the call list to get the result they want or skew the results a few percent one way or the other.
All it takes is a good list of people who answer poll questions who they have a good map of viewpoints for. In addition to the random selection, throw in 100 or 200 known numbers to push the poll 5 or 10% one way or the other to give the customer a story to write about. But of course, the polling companies are all honest and forthright and would never do that even though they are all owned by activists or the main stream media organizations.
-
Hypothetically, off the top of my head: I'm sure there were a couple during reconstruction that were drafting the Jim Crow laws, whomever came up with the idea to put Americans in camps during WWII, the architects of the early Indian Reservation system. I could come up with others.
What would have happened to black Americans if some black people started assassinating Jim Crow politicians?
What would have happened to the Japanese Americans if some had killed FDR?
-
What would have happened to black Americans if some black people started assassinating Jim Crow politicians?
What would have happened to the Japanese Americans if some had killed FDR?
My guess? Genocide.
-
What would have happened to black Americans if some black people started assassinating Jim Crow politicians?
What would have happened to the Japanese Americans if some had killed FDR?
In both those cases, it shouldn't have been just the affected populations. Yes, Yes, I know, times were different, but in both those cases Americans failed to stand up for the rights of other Americans, and let the government run amok. Both are a black mark on our country. For that matter, by the time any politician is doing something that deserves getting capped for, capping them is probably going to result in some immediate violence. Doesn't mean they don't need to be capped.
I'm not saying we should run out to any congressional baseball games next week or anything, don't get me wrong. I just took umbrage with the comment that American politicians have been universally good enough this doesn't apply to them. We've had our share of tyrannical human rights violations.
High inflation due to shitty economic policy isn't one of them, nor is rude Twitter and antogonistic speechifying.
-
IMO, that is why I think many polls are deliberately biased. It wouldn't take much effort to tailor the call list to get the result they want or skew the results a few percent one way or the other.
All it takes is a good list of people who answer poll questions who they have a good map of viewpoints for. In addition to the random selection, throw in these 100 or 200 numbers to push the poll 5 or 10% one way or the other to give the customer a story to write about. But of course, the polling companies are all honest and forthright and would never do that even though they are all owned by activists or the main stream media organizations.
They could also poll 5,000 people and pick the 1,500 answers that create the results they want. Or just make it up whole cloth for that matter. I don't trust polls . . . .
-
I don't for a second think we need to be assassinating politicians.
I do think that a heck of a lot of them should be put against the wall after their trial and conviction for treason.
And a heck of a lot of them need to spend the rest of their life at hard labor after their trials and convictions.
-
IMO, if you want to take action (at the ballot box is preferred), do it at the local level, not higher. The mayors, sheriffs, prosecutors, and judges have great deal more impact on you than most people realize.
-
IMO, if you want to take action (at the ballot box is preferred), do it at the local level, not higher. The mayors, sheriffs, prosecutors, and judges have great deal more impact on you than most people realize.
Poll worker.