“We need to identify each juror. Then make them miserable. Maybe even suicidal,” wrote another user on the same forum. “1,000,000 men (armed) need to go to washington and hang everyone. That’s the only solution,” wrote another user. “This s— is out of control.”
“I hope every juror is doxxed and they pay for what they have done,” another user wrote on Trump’s Truth Social platform Thursday. “May God strike them dead. We will on November 5th and they will pay!”
The rhetoric of essentially suggesting someone do a mass killing is not helpful no matter how toxic those fucks are. How can you not see that?
So you’d rather we just ignore them, play nice, and then act all shocked when they start to kill people?
No you idiot. What the fuck is so hard about understanding being as bad as your enemy? I didn’t invent the concept.
The personal insult diminishes the weight of your argument. I encourage you to reconsider your debate strategies.
I say this as someone who disagrees with your position. I strongly believe that the correct way to cure a deadly infestation of conservatism is with violence, based on what has and has not worked historically. Never in history have conservative oppressors been defeated by pacifism.
We didn’t ask to be put in this position, but here we are. We must choose to either defend our existence or allow the enemy to continue to slip the noose around our necks.
It is a badge of honor for a psychopath like you to disagree with me.
Again with the insults. I think it makes your position look weaker than it could be.
I think violence makes itself look weak
“I’m going to kill them before they kill me” is probably not the most ethical way to solve your problems.
While I agree with you, I would also argue that you’re not dealing with ethical people. Ethics only works if it’s reciprocal.
Then OP should start their killing spree I guess…