I don't know if this makes it "sadder" because, honestly, WTF are people at any political rally doing punching women in the face and why are they not automatically arrested?
But apparently "punching women in the face" is something that happens at political rallies for parties that support abortions in the name of "defending children" and are against trans rights in the name of "protecting women."
WTF are people at any political rally doing punching women in the face and why are they not automatically arrested?
I'm not sure if you've mingled with the common clay of the U.S. recently but about 90% of these fuckers have the emotional regulation ability of a toddler hopped up on red bull.
I grew up around these people. They basically think any problem can be shot, punched, or bombed to solve it.
Yep, years ago these were the guys that were sitting at the end of the bar and saying "I know how to solve the Middle East, just nuke it, just turn it into a big sheet of glass, I'd do a better job than those idiots in Washington"
When certain people hear “men and women should be equal” the first thing they say is “so I can punch a woman then and you’d be ok with it?!?” as if that’s some kind of gotcha argument against equality. Those people vote Republican.
Are we generally okay with men going around punching each other in the face? I haven't seen such a fight in person since high school, most grow out of that behavior.
Only because 85% of the names are Trump and he was a Democrat at the time.
You know how many sitting Democratic politicians are in the files? Zero. Republicans literally elected someone accused of child rape in the files knowing that was the case.
The majority of statistics on the internet are made up on the spot. Like yours clearly was.
Tell me again how many times Trumps name appears in the heavily redacted and curated section of the Epstein files that were actually released? Oh, 38,000 times huh? That sure seems like a high number. Especially considering they went out of their way to make him seem less culpable.
I worry that OP's sentiment and those of you in here supporting that sentiment are opting into a bad precedent that attributes the behavior of all members of a politician's audience as being the politician's responsibility.
I understand that you may read that sentence of mine and think I'm defending Trump and MAGA. That is not my goal here. My goal here is that if you opt into these games of letting ONE incidence from ONE supporter of a politician be used as ammo against that politican, then that's not always going to go your way. What if one of Obama's audience members did something wrong? Does that mean Obama deserves to be criticized for that? There are morons all around us, so you can't hope every support of the politicians you like will behave well all the time. Why would you opt into this type of foolish line of argument when it's so chaotic and non-sensical?
If you don't like a politician and one of their audience members does something wrong, then you'll agree with the sentiment. If you like the politician and one of their audience members does something wrong, then you'll disagree with the sentiment. The contradiction there is due to the argument being stupid.
It's not one incident from one supporter. It's systematic. Trump encourages this. Anyone who is still a Trump supporter after more than a decade of being a Russian asset, sex trafficker, thief, and thug, then they absolutely deserve blame.
My point is that if you opt into the sentiment expressed by OP's image, then you are opting into an argument where all your opposition needs to do is supply ONE misbehaving audience member for a politician who you like in order to successfully attack your position. Do you see how weak that position is?
Like if in the future even ONE audience member of Abdul El-Sayed or James Talarico misbehave, then now this position you've taken today will be used against you. Why opt into such a weak position when the politican can't realistically control the behavior of EVERY SINGLE supporter of theirs?
I think the counterpoint here is the reaction of the crowd at these rallies that cheered on the assault, not just that one person assaulted another. So, yes only a few actually assaulted the woman (it was more than one individual) while the mob cheered and the politicians insulted the victim of the assault.
I very specifically said that wasn't what I was doing and I explained why. The notion that MAGA voters are awful people isn't contradictory to anything I said.
I very specifically said that wasn't what I was doing and I explained why.
Then you did it anyway. You said it wasn't your goal, but that's what you did.
The notion that MAGA voters are awful people isn't contradictory to anything I said.
The problem with your position is that Trump is demonstrably as bad as his audience. You presume people are attributing the behavior of the audience to Trump. Wrong. We know Trump is a rapist who supports the assault and subjugation of women and dissent independently of this incident. This isn't setting a precedent for anything but the acknowledgement of the reality that Trump is a violent and deplorable person and you would have to believe that is acceptable to support him. If you want to claim that would somehow apply to Obama, you will fail to make that argument.
You are presuming this is a generalization of Trump and MAGA when it is an observation.
I don't think you're attacking anything I said. You're strawmanning me. Nothing I said in my first comment contradicts the notion that MAGA voters are awful people and yet here you are claiming I said MAGA voters aren't awful people.
I think it comes very much down to how the politician reacts to the incident itself. If they see it occur and attempt to stop it then ya obviously they don’t endorse such insane physical violence. Or if they have a statement condemning what happened afterwards when informed of the incident.
I’m willing to bet whatever trump has to say about it is not going to be very against those actions. Call me clairvoyant if you need.
So ya you have a point but to not take into account the politicians reaction to the event is taking a big chunk of the context you need to decide out of the formula
I mean that's fair. But I don't think the politicians are being singled out here. It's the types of people they draw in their crowds. Presumably people who are excited or "fans" of the person. Maybe not a normal voter, so a person in the extreme already.
"Nazi" is a term that has been generalized over the last 80 years to mean "white ultra-nationalist chirstian fascist". Sure it used to mean a member of the German National Socialist party back then, but it has been coopted, and rightly so. Hell, there are neo-Nazi groups out there proudly calling themselves that.
There! I explained it to you, hopefully the words arent too big for your brain to comprehend.
Christ you people are so sycophantically delusional.
You are a very silly person, dyou know that? Read these comments out to a friend, if you have any. Dont tell them who said it or anything, just read it and ask them what they think.
And I didnt decide anything about the word usage. I much prefer to call you a racist, ultra-national white christian fascist, because its longer and more complex. The better to confuse your little brain with.
You seem to be an idiot so I’ll break this down for you.
“Nazi” a short for National Socialists, which was a German far right wing party - in the political style of what we now know as Facisim - that was strongly centered on German national pride, identity, and blaming Jewish and Romani people for all of their country’s issues. It was formed by a bitter WWI who was famously rejected from art school.
While there have been many fascist governments over the years - the Confederate States of America was probably the first one - the Nazis stood out specifically because of their role in World War II and the Holocaust, which was the industrial scale genocide of Jewish, Romani, and other “undesirable” peoples of Europe.
Due to the nature of the atrocities that occurred during WWII, their name be synonymous with fascism globally.
Counter to what many conservatives think - which is a bit of a misnomer, as conservatives generally don’t think at all - there is no such thing as a liberal “fascist”, or “Nazi”. All fascists are conservative by nature. It is a conservative ideology. It would be like saying you had a conservative Communist - the words are an inherent contradiction. It can only exist on a scale relative to other fascists or communists. Communist will always be left-wing, fascists will always be right-wing.
In short, there’s a reason we call all fascists Nazis. It’s an appropriate enough label, and everybody knows what it means.. if you don’t wanna be called a Nazi, stopped acting like a fucking Nazi, you nonce.
A convicted rapist, pedo, and Epstein pal beat your best candidate twice. I'd be all twisted up about it too. Maybe unplug for a bit and get some fresh air.
Because they swore? Maybe they're just Irish, British or Australian. Swearing is practically an Australian national pastime, it's like a recreational sport here.
The difference is that you baselessly accuse people who disagree with you of shooting other people because you know you have no merited argument and lying is the only option, hence the rapist Trump worship.
Worshipping a rapist isn't a race, homie. That's a personal decision. That you have to lie about yet another thing doesn't help your already incoherent position.
Meh, that doesn't mean anything coming from a rapist supporter. That you choose to support rapists isn't an immutable characteristic, but a choice. I am definitely prejudiced against people who choose to be rape supporters.
197
u/Sweet-Strawberrry 13h ago
Sad that "women don't get assaulted at your rally" is now a selling point, but here we are. There's a clear difference indeed.