[WSJ Editorial Board] The Shooting of Donald Trump

There are good reasons to believe a Trump reelection would spell dire consequences for American democracy.

The very nearly successful attempt on his life doesn’t change that. And conversation over that significant and realistic possibility should not be muted on the grounds that it might inspire more crazy people to violence.

Keep the conversation grounded in facts and reasoned argument. Avoid needlessly exaggerated language. All good rules to follow. But something that should be directed, equally, to both parties.

 

There are also good reasons to believe that Biden's re-election would do the same. And that Biden's administration has done more harm to free speech than a Trump administration would.

 

In the article:

CF's first two replies:

Yup. Sounds about right.

 

I was actually making the same point you are making.

 

This is good but a bit weak. I would go further (with bolded below). There are always mentally unstable individuals out there. It's a stark reminder that we need leaders of high ethical values and morals. Political violence is never acceptable. It will cause more hatred and a cycle of violence. To break this cycle, we need leaders who not only vehemently denounce violence but consistently reinforce its absolute unacceptability. These leaders must, with unwavering resolve, refrain from stoking the flames of division. They must neither promote inflammatory imagery nor trivialize the gravity of political violence through mockery or dismissiveness.

The near assassination of Donald Trump could be a moment that catalyzes more hatred and an even worse cycle of violence. If that is how it goes, God help us.

Or it could be a redemptive moment that leads to introspection and political debate that is fierce but not cast as Armageddon. The country was spared the worst on Saturday and this is a chance to pull out of a partisan death spiral. That is the leadership Americans are desperate to see. The

The American people desperately need leaders who not only vehemently denounce violence but consistently reinforce its absolute unacceptability. These leaders must, with unwavering resolve, refrain from stoking the flames of division. They must neither promote inflammatory rhetoric or imagery, nor trivialize the gravity of political violence through mockery or dismissiveness. This includes acknowledging and empathizing with the suffering of those affected by such violence, rather than belittling their experiences or spreading conspiracies about them.​

 

I think there's a pretty stark difference between trying to end free and fair elections vs. trying to interfere with news cycles vis-a-vis social media.

 

I agree that political rhetoric is heated on both sides but there is a vast difference between trying to asking social media to censor content and trying to overturn an election through fake electors, and threats on lawmakers.

 

Political rhetoric has always been heated. What's new is the escalation into violent rhetoric and division, including the imagery they evoke. Remember Griffin? I don't need to remind you all of what Trump has said and spread. There's also the mockery and conspiracy theories spread by Musk following the violent attack on Pelosi. But one is a comedian and a businessman, which is still unacceptable, the other is a leader of a political party.

 

Furthermore, the fact of the matter is that the government did not go overboard to influence social media content moderation. As many have said before, social media companies themselves were doing the censorship, which is their right to do so. The government's role wasn't that impactful on their censorship.


https://www.scotusblog.com/2024/06/...influence-on-social-media-content-moderation/

Writing for the majority, Justice Amy Coney Barrett cited the lack of any “concrete link” between the restrictions that the plaintiffs complained of and the conduct of government officials – and in any event, she concluded, a court order blocking communication between government officials and social media companies likely would not have any effect on decision-making by those platforms, which can continue to enforce their policies.

The strongest showing, she continued, came from Jill Hines, a health-care activist who is the co-director of a group that advocated against COVID-19 vaccine mandates and mask mandates. Although Facebook took various actions with regard to social media posts by Hines and her group, including restricting her account after she posted an article about increased rates of myocarditis in teenagers who received the COVID-19 vaccine, Barrett acknowledged, “Facebook was targeting her pages before almost all of its communications with the White House and the CDC, which weakens the inference that her subsequent restrictions are likely traceable to ‘government-coerced enforcement’ of Facebook’s policies.”

 

And I was critical of Kathy Griffin and have been very critical of those on the left who have called for things like violent revolution.

What we see now those is those who have been talking about “retribution” and “Second Amendment solutions” are suddenly shocked about violent rhetoric.

 

For many years, I have been banging on the drum that leaders' violent and divisive rhetorical messaging matters. Their words do shape the larger public and can cause unstable individuals to take violence actions. This is all very much common sense. To reduce political violence, we should start by not accepting it ourselves, then we should not give power to leaders who use violent rhetoric.

 

I don't follow trump's socials so I may have missed his recent musings but he needs to tell his supporters to stand down. He has some quacks on his side so he needs to be clear that they must get to the polls in November and squash the violence.

 

I agree about violent rhetoric.

I disagree about the threat to democracy.

People are saying that it is ridiculous to suggest such a thing would be possible.

In 2016, I would have agreed. If someone told me in 2016 that one of the candidates would try and put into an action where fake slates of electors would be put forward so they could overturn the election and will of the people and that followers of that leader would help by storming the capitol and threatening to kill the Vice President of the United States while the president did nothing to stop it and said that maybe the VP deserved it, I would have thought that was going way overboard. I would have said that kind of rhetoric was over the top and possibly even dangerous.

Then those things actually happened. And the leader responsible hasn't said it was wrong or a mistake. He has put into a place a policy that anyone who disagrees with those actions and the rhetoric surrounding them won't be a part of his administration. He suggested that a United States general who disagreed with him could be executed. The leader that did all of those things won't promise to recognize the results of the next election or the one after that.

Yet this editorial and some posters on this board say people that worry about those things are over reacting.

I no longer think that's the case.

But for some

 

Saying that Biden is a threat to free speech is a violent rhetoric that can potentially cause an assassination attempt on Biden. Are you a radical extremist wanting to impose violence on your political opponents with this extremist rhetoric claiming they are against a fundamental human right?

 

Well yea a registered Republican tried to take him out so…

 

Trump said on day one of his presidency he would be a dictator. That came from his own mouth. That’s what Trump said about himself. Is that dangerous political rhetoric? Trump actually said that.

 

I would argue there is no difference.

 

proof please

 

No surprise given your inability to ever post logically.