California Teacher ID’d as WHCD Gunman

Originally posted by: Kevin Lewis

---

Yes, people who resort to such measures to right perceived wrongs are not in the majority by any means. That's obvious.

 

Indulge me, however, in a thought experiment. Were the literally hundreds of people who tried to kill Hitler "nut jobs" and "criminals wishing to be heroes"? That's certainly the way they were described in the Nazi press, and by Hitler as he chortled, watching them being slowly strangled with piano wire.

 

Josef Stalin killed twenty million of his own people. If Trotsky or someone else had killed him in, say, 1927, would they have been a nut job, a criminal, or a hero, for preventing that horror?

 

Your daughter attends a school near an Iranian military base. Or your son works on a Venezuelan fishing boat. Trump has killed them. If you had a time machine, would you go back and stop him, by any means necessary? Would wishing you could make you a nut job and a criminal?

 

Trump survived this latest attempt and will go on raping, looting, and killing. Everyone who dies at his hand henceforth will die because this latest assassin botched his attempt. If--i almost want to say when--someone you love is murdered by Trump, won't you bemoan his failure and consider him a hero for trying? Or will you continue to regard him as a criminal and a nutjob?

 

If Washington DC dissolves in a radioactive fireball sent courtesy of the man whose father Trump killed...

 

I think you get the point. Trump is in that select historical company of evil mass murderers, and while I still think he should be removed via the democratic process, that process is slow, and many, many more people will die every single day he sits in the Oval Office and spews his demented schemes.

 

Sort of skews the morality of it all, hm?

---

Originally posted by: Kevin Lewis

---

Yes, people who resort to such measures to right perceived wrongs are not in the majority by any means. That's obvious.

 

Indulge me, however, in a thought experiment. Were the literally hundreds of people who tried to kill Hitler "nut jobs" and "criminals wishing to be heroes"? That's certainly the way they were described in the Nazi press, and by Hitler as he chortled, watching them being slowly strangled with piano wire.

 

Josef Stalin killed twenty million of his own people. If Trotsky or someone else had killed him in, say, 1927, would they have been a nut job, a criminal, or a hero, for preventing that horror?

 

Your daughter attends a school near an Iranian military base. Or your son works on a Venezuelan fishing boat. Trump has killed them. If you had a time machine, would you go back and stop him, by any means necessary? Would wishing you could make you a nut job and a criminal?

 

Trump survived this latest attempt and will go on raping, looting, and killing. Everyone who dies at his hand henceforth will die because this latest assassin botched his attempt. If--i almost want to say when--someone you love is murdered by Trump, won't you bemoan his failure and consider him a hero for trying? Or will you continue to regard him as a criminal and a nutjob?

 

If Washington DC dissolves in a radioactive fireball sent courtesy of the man whose father Trump killed...

 

I think you get the point. Trump is in that select historical company of evil mass murderers, and while I still think he should be removed via the democratic process, that process is slow, and many, many more people will die every single day he sits in the Oval Office and spews his demented schemes.

 

Sort of skews the morality of it all, hm?

---

Originally posted by: Nines

---

You're once again making excuses for and /or attempting to justify an attempted murderers actions here though  you try to cloak / disguise it as something else. We get that you label Trump as a murderer and a detestable human being..that's your business and prerogative. Yet,  how in hell is that a supposed free pass for the batshit crazy  individual involved in this latest incident in which other officials besides Trump, his wife, admin officials, and/or journalists could have been injured / killed? You equate Trump with Hitler, Slotsky, and Stalin  above and 

suggest by extension that it would have been acceptable for this guy to take Trump out as intended? 

 

OK.

 

 

 

 

---

Originally posted by: O2bnVegas

---

Well, Kevin, you pose theories using high profile men of power, not loners with worsening thought disorders like grandiosity at a minimum.  Think Ted Kaczynski.   Or the Atlanta Olympic bomber.  Or Timothy McVeigh and the OK City bombing.  All high intelligence in their way, not drifters but  extremists, anti-government.  Though those may not be in the same category as the wannabe hero type either.

 

I do wonder how parents of murdered children, from war or local crimes, cope with their losses, keep from going insane.  But the majority still do not seek that level of revenge though I'm sure some think they might want to if they thought they had the means and opportunity.

 

I don't have the facts that you state regarding Trump being a murderer. 

 

Candy  

---

Originally posted by: Kevin Lewis

---

I was certain that someone would twist my words and claim that I approved of this attempt, even though I explicitly said that Trump should be removed from office by democratic, not violent means. But you do you, MAGA.

 

I was simply pointing out that when ANYONE opposes the ruling regime in a fascist country, they are ALWAYS and IMMEDIATELY labeled as crazy, a criminal, a nutjob, etc. I also pointed out that those who have attempted to kill profoundly evil people who have committed mass murder have been lauded as heroes, though vilified by the regime while it survives.

 

Therefore, I resist the idea that this person was "deranged," a "nut job," etc. Everything we know so far suggests that he was highly intelligent and had planned his attempt carefully--not exactly how a crazy person behaves. He turned out to be a crappy assassin. That's neither here nor there.

 

You can wrongly extrapolate the above to say that I approve of this guy's actions. That's your prerogative, but you're dead wrong. Would the outcome have been beneficial had he succeeded? Immensely! We have no idea how many more people will die because Trump is still alive, but it may be in the tens of thousands. An evil act to forestall an even greater evil act is quite the moral dilemma, though. Hiroshima? The firebombing of Berlin? We heartily approved of those acts. Hundreds of thousands of innocent people were killed. So mass murder is justified in the American psyche if it prevents something even worse?

 

If you're willing to participate in a thought experiment, would America and the world have been better or worse off if the gunman who gave the Turd a Van Gogh had been a better marksman? And to extrapolate, will the coming weeks and months be better or worse than they would have been if this recent attempt had succeeded?

 

I'm not giving him or anyone else a "free pass." You're making a straw man argument. I'm only saying that taking out a profoundly evil mass murderer may prevent him from committing further such horrors. 

---

Originally posted by: tom

---

Kevin likes to throw the facist term but provides no evidence

 

He complains about President Trump and Iran but had no problem with the US bombing Syria, Libya Afghanistan and Yugoslavia. 

Condistency is not a trademark of Kevin but hypocrisy is 

---

Originally posted by: Kevin Lewis

---

Putting words in other people's mouths is weak. I never said that his behavior, intent, or actions were "normal." I was simply resisting the saying that he was deranged, a nut job, etc. etc.

 

You didn't want to do the thought experiment. Would the world be better off if this assassin had succeeded? I give a resounding "YES." And I think most people would agree.

 

So does that justify this guy's actions? No. 

 

That said, Trump killed the Ayatollah, ostensibly because he posed a threat and people would have been harmed if he had lived. Trump did NOT have the legal authority to do so. Therefore, I ask whether anyone else might want to kill Trump because of the threat he poses, and what's the difference, really? Trump has explicitly said that he gets to kill people he doesn't like. What's the difference between that and someone trying to kill Trump because he doesn't like him?

 

My point is that killing someone because they pose a threat and/or you dislike them is a veritable cornerstone of the American ethos, and if Trump gets to do it with impunity, then we get to do it to him. You can't bring up morality here when AMURRICA has a centuries-long history of killing anyone who "needs killing."

---