robosmith Posted April 17 Report Posted April 17 14 minutes ago, User said: LOL, what I know is that all your posts were deleted here because the crossed the line of any moral decency and likely right up to the line on legality. You have no room to talk about morals here. No, you know what I told you. Nothing more. Beyond that, you're just GUESSING. Just like I KNEW you would FAIL to answer the question about killing Hitler. Quote
User Posted April 17 Report Posted April 17 16 minutes ago, robosmith said: No, you know what I told you. Yeah... that what I know is that all your posts were deleted here because they crossed the line of any moral decency and likely right up to the line on legality. Quote
gatomontes99 Posted April 18 Author Report Posted April 18 8 hours ago, robosmith said: YOU are LYING about what the survey says. IT asks about justification, NOT "OK" or not. ONLY 9% and 13% said it's completely justified, and the rest said NOT AT ALL or varying levels of partially justified. As the IGNORANCE of posters HERE proves, there is a wide disparity of information held about the damages done by both figures. FOS LIES only viewers keep proving they know LITTLE about legal and ethical violations by Muskrat and Trump with many completely buying only allegations of fixing waste fraud and abuse while possessing complete IGNORANCE about DOGE LIES. Rule #2 From the article written by the people that analyzed the data: These effects were largely driven by respondents that self-identified as left of center,3 with 48% and 55% at least somewhat justifying murder for Elon Musk and President Trump, respectively, indicating significantly higher justification for violence against these figures. https://networkcontagion.us/wp-content/uploads/NCRI-Assassination-Culture-Brief.pdf Your pathetic attempt to seem strong is clearly over compensation. Just like the other thread, where you know you are wrong, you are taking an indefensible position and trying to support it with false bravado. You are neither strong or convincing. Quote The Rules for Liberal tactics: If they can't refute the content, attack the source. If they can't refute the content, attack the poster. If 1 and 2 fail, pretend it never happened. Everyone you disagree with is Hitler. A word is defined by the emotion it elicits and not the actual definition. If they are wrong, blame the opponent. If a liberal policy didn't work, it's a conservatives fault and vice versa. If all else fails, just be angry.
Hodad Posted April 18 Report Posted April 18 (edited) This is not a great survey, and an even worse presentation of it on this forum, but beyond that it really misses the point. This isn't an indictment of "the left," but a sign of how bad things are getting in this country. The closer we are dragged toward dictatorship the higher that number will go. That's simply what happens when dictators disempower the people. The backlash is revolt. Let Trump keep talking about a third term and ignoring the judicial branch and watch those numbers climb. Americans (well, those of us with some dignity) will be governed, but we're not interested in being ruled. Edited April 18 by Hodad 1 Quote
gatomontes99 Posted April 18 Author Report Posted April 18 (edited) 16 minutes ago, Hodad said: This is not a great survey, and an even worse presentation of it on this forum, but beyond that it really misses the point. This isn't an indictment of "the left," but a sign of how bad things are getting in this country. The closer we are dragged toward dictatorship the higher that number will go. That's simply what happens when dictators disempower the people. The backlash is revolt. Let Trump keep talking about a third term and ignoring the judicial branch and watch those numbers climb. Americans (well, those of us with some dignity) will be governed, but we're not interested in being ruled. A prime example of "tell me you support assasination without saying you support assasination." Your entire argument is that DJT deserves it because he's a dictator. Exactly how does that make the survey invalid? Edited April 18 by gatomontes99 Quote The Rules for Liberal tactics: If they can't refute the content, attack the source. If they can't refute the content, attack the poster. If 1 and 2 fail, pretend it never happened. Everyone you disagree with is Hitler. A word is defined by the emotion it elicits and not the actual definition. If they are wrong, blame the opponent. If a liberal policy didn't work, it's a conservatives fault and vice versa. If all else fails, just be angry.
Hodad Posted April 18 Report Posted April 18 (edited) 31 minutes ago, gatomontes99 said: A prime example of "tell me you support assasination without saying you support assasination." Your entire argument is that DJT deserves it because he's a dictator. Exactly how does that make the survey invalid? Tell me you have poor reading comprehension without telling me you have poor reading comprehension? The question is not whether someone supports assassination or not. The question is whether someone perceives that someone would be justified in taking such an action. And the answers are necessarily on a spectrum. Which is actually reflected in the survey, though not in your ham-handed headline. Whether it's a political leader, an oligarch or a CEO or anyone else in a position of power, the more they harm common people who have little recourse, the higher that support will get. In a functioning democracy with the rule of law, we vote out the bad actors. Or we stop buying their products. Or whatever. -- But when those bad actors increasingly disempower people and ignore the rule of law, then an increasing number of people will sympathize extra-legal remedies. It's pretty simple. Edited April 18 by Hodad 1 Quote
gatomontes99 Posted April 18 Author Report Posted April 18 3 hours ago, Hodad said: The question is whether someone perceives that someone would be justified in taking such an action. That's a distinction without a difference. Justification synonyms 3 hours ago, Hodad said: Whether it's a political leader, an oligarch or a CEO or anyone else in a position of power, the more they harm common people who have little recourse, the higher that support will get. Even you used support in place of justification. And you did so trying to excuse the support/justification for assasination. I want you to understand that your argument boils down to, "it isn't happening but it's great that it is." You can't have it both was. It is either happening, as I have proven, or it is ok as you just suggested. 3 hours ago, Hodad said: In a functioning democracy with the rule of law, we vote out the bad actors. Or we stop buying their products. Or whatever. -- But when those bad actors increasingly disempower people and ignore the rule of law, then an increasing number of people will sympathize extra-legal remedies. Trump is literally leaving the office in under 4 years. To suggest that he can't be voted out of office is ludicrous. To suggest that is justification for assasination (aka support) is just disgusting. Quote The Rules for Liberal tactics: If they can't refute the content, attack the source. If they can't refute the content, attack the poster. If 1 and 2 fail, pretend it never happened. Everyone you disagree with is Hitler. A word is defined by the emotion it elicits and not the actual definition. If they are wrong, blame the opponent. If a liberal policy didn't work, it's a conservatives fault and vice versa. If all else fails, just be angry.
ExFlyer Posted April 18 Report Posted April 18 I do not think it is wise to assassinate Trump... Geez, that would make Vance the President LOL Quote Everyone is entitled to their own opinion. But you are not entitled to your own facts.
robosmith Posted April 18 Report Posted April 18 20 minutes ago, gatomontes99 said: Trump is literally leaving the office in under 4 years. To suggest that he can't be voted out of office is ludicrous. To suggest that is justification for assasination (aka support) is just disgusting. You DON'T KNOW ^this. People who voted for Hitler thought he was leaving office after his term was up, but he had other ideas and the exercised the power to STAY. Who is going to drag Trump out of the WH if he decides he doesn't want to go? Mike Johnson? Pete Hegseth? LMAO Quote
gatomontes99 Posted April 18 Author Report Posted April 18 5 minutes ago, robosmith said: You DON'T KNOW ^this. People who voted for Hitler thought he was leaving office after his term was up, but he had other ideas and the exercised the power to STAY. Who is going to drag Trump out of the WH if he decides he doesn't want to go? Mike Johnson? Pete Hegseth? LMAO Your dumb asś speculation is nothing more than your dumb aśs speculation. Oh, I forgot. Hitler wasn't like Hilter and Trump wasn't like Hilter so Hitler and Trump are the same! What a joke. I have some young hoochies to dance with her at Coachella so whatever. Quote The Rules for Liberal tactics: If they can't refute the content, attack the source. If they can't refute the content, attack the poster. If 1 and 2 fail, pretend it never happened. Everyone you disagree with is Hitler. A word is defined by the emotion it elicits and not the actual definition. If they are wrong, blame the opponent. If a liberal policy didn't work, it's a conservatives fault and vice versa. If all else fails, just be angry.
robosmith Posted April 18 Report Posted April 18 24 minutes ago, gatomontes99 said: Your dumb asś speculation is nothing more than your dumb aśs speculation. Oh, I forgot. Hitler wasn't like Hilter and Trump wasn't like Hilter so Hitler and Trump are the same! What a joke. I have some young hoochies to dance with her at Coachella so whatever. It's not just speculation DUMB ASS. Trump repeatedly talks about staying, or are you completely IGNORANT of that FACT? You "forgot" about a lot of inconvenient FACTS AND constantly MISREPRESENT, so NOONE can take you seriously. 🤮 Back to ignore, lDIOT. Quote
gatomontes99 Posted April 18 Author Report Posted April 18 11 minutes ago, robosmith said: It's not just speculation DUMB ASS. Trump repeatedly talks about staying, or are you completely IGNORANT of that FACT? You "forgot" about a lot of inconvenient FACTS AND constantly MISREPRESENT, so NOONE can take you seriously. 🤮 Back to ignore, lDIOT. You are getting trolled. He's not staying. He likes pushing your buttons to watch you melt down. And frankly, I like it when he does it. It's hilarious. Quote The Rules for Liberal tactics: If they can't refute the content, attack the source. If they can't refute the content, attack the poster. If 1 and 2 fail, pretend it never happened. Everyone you disagree with is Hitler. A word is defined by the emotion it elicits and not the actual definition. If they are wrong, blame the opponent. If a liberal policy didn't work, it's a conservatives fault and vice versa. If all else fails, just be angry.
Hodad Posted April 18 Report Posted April 18 (edited) 1 hour ago, gatomontes99 said: That's a distinction without a difference. Justification synonyms Even you used support in place of justification. And you did so trying to excuse the support/justification for assasination. I want you to understand that your argument boils down to, "it isn't happening but it's great that it is." You can't have it both was. It is either happening, as I have proven, or it is ok as you just suggested. Trump is literally leaving the office in under 4 years. To suggest that he can't be voted out of office is ludicrous. To suggest that is justification for assasination (aka support) is just disgusting. Well, I guess those things seem interchangeable to those who aren't great with words. That's why you have a list that includes wherefore, exoneration,etc. -- When and how words are used matter. It's called context. You should check into it. An easy example is that when the UHC CEO was murdered, most people thought that was bad and not a correct reaction. But a LOT of people--particularly those who had been done dirty by UHC--could understand the impetus and feel it was partially justified. Or to put is in even easier terms, you've been out in public when someone else was behaving badly--whether salty talk in a bar or aggressive driving, and decided not to punch them in the mouth or ram them with your car. But if someone else did it you might smile a little. That's what we're talking about. It doesn't mean explicitly supporting that violence, but you may perceive that it's somewhat justified. Meanwhile, Trump is *literally* talking publicly about circumventing the law for a third term. Just like he *literally* tried to deploy fraudulent electors to steal the 2020 election. And his administration is *literally* ignoring judicial orders. Don't pretend he has any respect for democracy or the law. Of course some people are starting to feel sympathy toward extralegal solutions to extralegal threats. Again, that's pretty easy to understand. But you're not interested in understanding how those people feel or why. You're just trying to score cheap points in game nobody else is playing. Edited April 18 by Hodad Quote
gatomontes99 Posted April 18 Author Report Posted April 18 16 minutes ago, Hodad said: Or to put is in even easier terms, you've been out in public when someone else was behaving badly--whether salty talk in a bar or aggressive driving, and decided not to punch them in the mouth or ram them with your car. But if someone else did it you might smile a little. That's what we're talking about. It doesn't mean explicitly supporting that violence, but you may perceive that it's somewhat justified. Yes it does. 17 minutes ago, Hodad said: Of course some people are starting to feel sympathy toward extralegal solutions to extralegal threats. Again, that's pretty easy to understand. But you're not interested in understanding how those people feel or why. You're just trying to score cheap points in game nobody else is playing. I didn't say I don't understand. I can condemn something I understand. Quote The Rules for Liberal tactics: If they can't refute the content, attack the source. If they can't refute the content, attack the poster. If 1 and 2 fail, pretend it never happened. Everyone you disagree with is Hitler. A word is defined by the emotion it elicits and not the actual definition. If they are wrong, blame the opponent. If a liberal policy didn't work, it's a conservatives fault and vice versa. If all else fails, just be angry.
Hodad Posted April 18 Report Posted April 18 18 minutes ago, gatomontes99 said: Yes it does. Ah, the "nuh-uh" rebuttal. I didn't realize I was dealing with a level 7 Laser Lotus. Quote I didn't say I don't understand. I can condemn something I understand. Indeed, you don't need to say it. 1 Quote
User Posted April 19 Report Posted April 19 5 hours ago, Hodad said: Ah, the "nuh-uh" rebuttal. I didn't realize I was dealing with a level 7 Laser Lotus. Says the guy who ran away from me... Quote
User Posted April 19 Report Posted April 19 5 hours ago, Hodad said: Meanwhile, Trump is *literally* talking publicly about circumventing the law for a third term. Um, no. This is an outright lie. Like you tend to do... you bend the truth as Trump said no such thing about "circumventing the law" 5 hours ago, Hodad said: Just like he *literally* tried to deploy fraudulent electors to steal the 2020 election. He didn't do this either. Once again, you bend the truth and ignore the facts. 5 hours ago, Hodad said: And his administration is *literally* ignoring judicial orders. Don't pretend he has any respect for democracy or the law. OK, name the judicial orders he is just outright ignoring. You can't, you won't, you are just hiding from me. Quote
gatomontes99 Posted April 19 Author Report Posted April 19 21 hours ago, Hodad said: Ah, the "nuh-uh" rebuttal. I didn't realize I was dealing with a level 7 Laser Lotus. Indeed, you don't need to say it. Right. So you take words out of context and then try to tell me I'm out of context. When answering a question about "is it justified" an answer of yes implies support because you think it's justified. I conceed that an assasin has reasons. But reasons does not equal justification. The definition of the word justification is to be justified. Justified means: having or shown to have a just, right, or reasonable basis. If you say you think something is justified you are saying it has a moral and reasonable basis. That's support. Let's stop the pedantic reasoning. You really should since you are demonstrably wrong. 1 Quote The Rules for Liberal tactics: If they can't refute the content, attack the source. If they can't refute the content, attack the poster. If 1 and 2 fail, pretend it never happened. Everyone you disagree with is Hitler. A word is defined by the emotion it elicits and not the actual definition. If they are wrong, blame the opponent. If a liberal policy didn't work, it's a conservatives fault and vice versa. If all else fails, just be angry.
CouchPotato Posted April 20 Report Posted April 20 (edited) More despicable behavior that leftists will justify. The family of Austin Metcalf was swatted on Thursday night. Quote Jeff Metcalf, the father of slain Frisco, Texas, track star Austin Metcalf, told Fox News Digital his home was swatted Thursday night. "I can confirm that last night our officers responded to a gunshot call in the 8000 block of Hickory Street involving the Metcalf family, which turned out to be swatting," the Frisco Police Department (FPD) confirmed. https://www.foxnews.com/us/slain-texas-teen-austin-metcalf-home-swatted-hours-after-tense-press-conference-showdown Edited April 20 by CouchPotato 1 Quote
robosmith Posted April 20 Report Posted April 20 4 hours ago, CouchPotato said: More despicable behavior that leftists will justify. The family of Austin Metcalf was swatted on Thursday night. https://www.foxnews.com/us/slain-texas-teen-austin-metcalf-home-swatted-hours-after-tense-press-conference-showdown Really IGNORANT of you to state "leftists will justify" when YOU'RE JUST GUESSING. Quote
CouchPotato Posted April 20 Report Posted April 20 5 minutes ago, robosmith said: Really IGNORANT of you to state "leftists will justify" when YOU'RE JUST GUESSING. GUESSING CORRECTLY! 1 Quote
robosmith Posted April 20 Report Posted April 20 1 minute ago, CouchPotato said: GUESSING CORRECTLY! Prove it. Quote
CdnFox Posted April 20 Report Posted April 20 9 minutes ago, robosmith said: Prove it. = he's right. 1 Quote There are two types of people in this world: Those who can extrapolate from incomplete data
gatomontes99 Posted April 20 Author Report Posted April 20 3 hours ago, CouchPotato said: GUESSING CORRECTLY! Is it really a guess though? 2 Quote The Rules for Liberal tactics: If they can't refute the content, attack the source. If they can't refute the content, attack the poster. If 1 and 2 fail, pretend it never happened. Everyone you disagree with is Hitler. A word is defined by the emotion it elicits and not the actual definition. If they are wrong, blame the opponent. If a liberal policy didn't work, it's a conservatives fault and vice versa. If all else fails, just be angry.
Nationalist Posted April 20 Report Posted April 20 (edited) On 4/18/2025 at 12:30 PM, gatomontes99 said: A prime example of "tell me you support assasination without saying you support assasination." Your entire argument is that DJT deserves it because he's a dictator. Exactly how does that make the survey invalid? And exactly how is Trump a dictator? Like all other Libbie talking points, this dictator BS is nothing more than sh1t flung at the wall. Nothing Trump has done is outside the purview of the POTUS. Nothing. Edited April 20 by Nationalist 1 Quote Its so lonely in m'saddle since m'horse died.
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.