Man tries to stab GOP candidate after ranting about Trump - Polidicks

Man allegedly tried to stab GOP candidate Rudy Peters after rant.. Nice job on giving them more ammo cockbite.

https://files.facepunch.com/forum/upload/205174/91136a56-1b05-48bd-af00-daa7994b4fd7/image.png I'm not usually one to blame shit like this on mental illness, but I feel this mugshot is pretty telling.

I swear to god if this proceeds to be used to paint all liberals as violent fascists.

He was going to fucking stab a guy.

GOP - "We're going to pass a bunch of laws that fuck over the middle class and lower classes and let corporations run rampant" GOP candidate almost gets stabbed GOP - "WHY ARE PEOPLE ANGRY? THIS IS WHY OUR COUNTRY IS FALLING APART!"

538 lists the district he's running as having a >99% chance of going Democrat, this guy had very little chance and got stabbed.

Jesus Christ dude are you listening to yourself?

It was a bad idea he should've been out there harassing Rudy about his policies (arming schools / repealing gas tax) or doing something for the prison strike or protesting ICE instead.

Man looks like the protag from Vice City

People need to learn that when "the right side" opens Pandora's box with regards to, say, assassinating political candidates, that opens it up for "the wrong side" too and you DO NOT maintain control of that. If you want to justify political assassinations "because they're really bad!!" then anyone who feels a political candidate is "really bad" now feels justified in assassinating them.

I think if all the Republicans in office died of natural causes and with absolutely no reason to suspect foul play (although, I don't see how an entire political party dying wouldn't warrant extreme suspicion), it'd be a net positive for the world. I just don't think it's ethically justifiable to take it into your own hands.

No, nobody would argue hes a hero except deluded persons such as yourself. I dont think you understand what fascists means. Fascist is not a buzzword for "person on a political spectrun I dont agree with" Great job playing into the us vs them politics and helping mentally ill fools like this to find the courage to commit acts of violence. Always great to see more people contributing to the problem!

You'll note that's distinctly not what I said. I said it'd be a net positive for the world. I didn't say I want them to die.

"Can't blame him" "The stabbing was silly" Maybe you should make up your fucking mind before you post

I mean, this, but not sarcastically. It's also not just about the law. The law is not ethics.

Using violence to get your way is way beyond silly dood. Check into a mental hospital if you think its genuinely ok to hurt people you disagree with. You live in a functioning democracy, not a fascist dictatorship. This shit isnt justifiable nor is it understandable in our society.

I believe it was Shoe0nhead who said that the problem with allowing people to punch nazis is that the nazis might start punching back. Violence is an absolute last resort when all political avenues have been exhausted - we're fortunately nowhere near that stage yet, even if things are bleak.

Doesn't even matter, republicans will do and say anything to get their way including that that guy was a werewolf-cosplaying child rapist and a deep state agent hired by Killary.

Wait, are we still talking about the US there?

We've got problems but our elections arent rigged and our president still has term limits. We're still a democracy where peaceful means of protest, and excercising your rights, have effective results on political outcomes. Yea, thats awful. Still not fascism and still doesn't justify being violent over this. Again, if youre so mentally unstable that you want to hurt people before you even try to exhaust all peaceful means, go to a mental institution and check yourself in. This is genuinely pathetic and really disturbing.

Ah yes, shoe on head, a leading political thinker of our generation. A true rational skeptic™. Nazis already do punch back dude, their entire existence is predicated on not allowing others to exist. The question is not free speech or free thought, but priority. Because a Nazi's right to their platform is a threat on a minority's right to their platform. If you're siding with the Nazi here it's extremely telling. Paradoxically by giving one group freedom you can diminish another's, and I can tell you which group I side with here. [sp]IT'S NOT THE NAZIS[/sp]

Aren't they? Between an electoral college system that favors a minority to the point where a candidate can lose the popular vote and still become president, and states gerrymandered to hell where citizens are severely underrepresented, I wouldn't really call your elections "not rigged". It's a mess, I cannot in good faith consider it to be a functional democracy.

Like I said, its a mess but its not rigged. The electoral college is not anything close to a rigged system and nor is gerrymandering. The electoral college is fine but gerrymandering is messed up but it is getting fixed. Bottom line is that Jouska is an absolute baby for advocating violence in this situation. Not being cool with violence is not "siding with nazis". Quit being disingenuous. Making violence an acceptable form of protest is only going to make everything worse. You can advocate it all day long for use ONLY against Nazis, but eventually its going to be used by everyone against everyone else. Normalization of these ideas holds no exclusivity against one group of people.

No? Did you even read the post I was replying to? I was expanding on his example of violence against Nazis... we're talking about the broader topic here, not just this incident.

I don't consider shoe0nhead some mastermind, incisive apex, but she's nothing like Sargon and many of the other idiots who claim they're liberals, as shoe's been vocal in support of trans people and stuff, proving that she's at least libertarian on social policy and centre-left generally. Still, just rate the quote from her, not her in general. As to your point, I don't understand why you're arguing in favour of political violence. If you actually knew a little bit about the Weimar Republic, you'd know that militarised, hard left communists and hard right Nazi fascists is exactly what allowed Hitler to get into power, as them fighting in the street gave credibility to Hitler's lies.

I’m pretty sure that’s called the rule of law. You can’t have random people committing random acts of violence against alleged Nazis like it’s the Spanish Inquisition. How do you think it will look when the wrong people get attacked due to anti-fascists being overzealous? Right now it’s still law enforcement’s job to prosecute people who incite acts of violence and terror, not yours. However you can help out the authorities by bringing any credible threats or violent behavior to their attention. You can also voice your concerns to local representatives and ask them what is being done and/or what else can be done to protect people from the threat of political extremists like Neo Nazis.

Why can't we just have ethical principles against causing suffering to sentient creatures and apply them consistently?

Nazis want to do much worse than punch as soon as they get the room and power to do so. We dont need to exactly speculate on whether or not Nazis "might" eventually engage in violent tendencies (spoiler alert: they will)

in an alternate world, churchill responded to germany's aggression with "Yeah? Well guess what nerd? We aren't gonna fight you." and with that hitler was forced into retreat. If only our world was as wise. smh

Churchill didn't even declare war on Germany - that was Chamberlain, after realising appeasement was a massive failure, but neither situation is always right. Churchill really wanted the Americans and British to attack the Soviets after the war. Thankfully, smarter people prevailed.