superrific
Master of the ZZLverse
- Messages
- 10,841
Eh, VPs don't matter. If they did, Walz would be VP now. I get your point and I generally agree, but the discussion seems academic to me.
Minnesota assasination thread
- Thread starter altmin
- Start date
- Replies: 629
- Views: 17K
- Politics
superrific
Master of the ZZLverse
- Messages
- 10,841
So the problem here isn't that the killer was deranged; it's that he was rational. As I've said multiple times before, I'm really surprised there aren't way more political assassinations than there are.
Let's go back to 2023, to pick one example. Suppose you're an ordinary liberal with terminal cancer and you want to do one last good deed for the betterment of humankind. There are many options, of course, but one stands out above the rest: killing Clarence Thomas and/or Sam Alito would be tens of thousands of times more impactful than anything else you could do. Well, I don't frequently think about assassinations so maybe there's somebody else you could kill that would also be impactful, but the point is assassination is a far, far better option than anything else you could do.
This shooter saw the opportunity to flip both houses of the Minnesota legislature. He flipped one and might have flipped another had his second attack been fully successful. Who in America ever has that kind of power? Assassins and billionaires, that's who.
The single most important reform to be made in this regard would be eliminating life tenure for judges. That just puts a fucking bullseye on their backs.
But we should expect more of this. I mean, think about young Mr. Precip, who killed Archduke Ferdinand. He actually did free Serbia from Austrian domination. He did what no other person in Europe ever could.
Let's go back to 2023, to pick one example. Suppose you're an ordinary liberal with terminal cancer and you want to do one last good deed for the betterment of humankind. There are many options, of course, but one stands out above the rest: killing Clarence Thomas and/or Sam Alito would be tens of thousands of times more impactful than anything else you could do. Well, I don't frequently think about assassinations so maybe there's somebody else you could kill that would also be impactful, but the point is assassination is a far, far better option than anything else you could do.
This shooter saw the opportunity to flip both houses of the Minnesota legislature. He flipped one and might have flipped another had his second attack been fully successful. Who in America ever has that kind of power? Assassins and billionaires, that's who.
The single most important reform to be made in this regard would be eliminating life tenure for judges. That just puts a fucking bullseye on their backs.
But we should expect more of this. I mean, think about young Mr. Precip, who killed Archduke Ferdinand. He actually did free Serbia from Austrian domination. He did what no other person in Europe ever could.
Last edited:
- Messages
- 7,134
The jury is only out for those that don't want to admit he is maga.
So are you saying that magas do want a king? I thought there was a negative response to his dictator statement in the campaign, until fox sanewashed it for him.
lawtig02
Legend of ZZL
- Messages
- 5,054
The Supreme Court of Georgia, like all states, requires attorneys to swear to “support and defend the Constitution of the United States.” I cannot imagine how Ram can continue practicing in good faith after what he has said about his partner’s complicity in the effort to steal Georgia’s electoral votes in 2000.
superrific
Master of the ZZLverse
- Messages
- 10,841
Dude what? Tell me where I'm wrong. This is a problem that isn't going away; is likely to get worse; and I don't see what benefit comes from not talking about it.
- Messages
- 1,642
You’re a lawyer, correct? I think what you wrote is potentially legally actionable against us. You seem to frame murder as justifiable, even a noble act. Even if it’s just rhetorical hyperbole, it can legitimize real world violence.
superrific
Master of the ZZLverse
- Messages
- 10,841
1. It is absolutely 100% not legally actionable. This site is not the publisher of any information. And anyway it would have to spur an actual action, and that action would have to be fairly traceable to this board, and even then there wouldn't be liability unless one could prove causation which would be nearly impossible.
2. I'm not framing murder as a noble act. But it is justifiable. That's just a fact. And even more factually and importantly, people believe that it is.
Who won the O7 war? Kind of Hamas, right? I mean, the Palestinian people are getting crushed. Hamas is obviously taking a lot of losses. But it also focused the world's attention on Gaza; created international sympathy for Hamas' cause; weakened the United States; and has made Israel increasingly pariah state. And that is a perverse outcome.
This insistence on not talking about this stuff -- when literally it just happened -- seems bonkers to me. You can't escape the truth.
- Messages
- 1,436
-> https://www.nytimes.com/2025/06/16/...e_code=1.PU8.CSkm.meO8Ju2p3r7V&smid=url-shareMike Lee, at the very least, should be censured by his colleagues in the Senate. Impeachment would be better.
theel4life
Iconic Member
- Messages
- 2,125
- Messages
- 1,642
Forgetting the legal part, your text absolutely glorifies violence.
superrific
Master of the ZZLverse
- Messages
- 10,841
Ban me, then. I don't give a fuck. CDA section 230 insulates the site from any and all potential liability.
theel4life
Iconic Member
- Messages
- 2,125
Delete that shit bro.
superrific
Master of the ZZLverse
- Messages
- 10,841
It does nothing of the sort.
We're sitting here on a thread about a guy who just killed people in order to flip a legislature. Literally it just happened. Pretending he is an insane person isn't going to help make that go away. The problem is specifically that his actions are rational. That's a fact. If we don't want to glorify it, we should probably give some thought to reforming the various systems to insulate against the possibility.
superrific
Master of the ZZLverse
- Messages
- 10,841
Think of me as like a white hat hacker.
mynameisbond
Esteemed Member
- Messages
- 601
+ 1
He's Not Here
Exceptional Member
- Messages
- 230
I get where super was going and I don’t think it’s glorifying violence. Still, super, I’d go back rephrase it.
As a thought exercise - and nothing more - a “greater good” argument could be used to validate murder/assassination. The, if you could have murdered Hitler, thing.
The obvious issue is, who decides - especially in today’s world of disinformation.
donbosco
Inconceivable Member
- Messages
- 4,687
MAGAS want a Caudillo: "...a short definition: A Personalistic, Populist Leader often with a military background, or at least a martial bearing, whom people follow with a nigh cult-like devotion. The Caudillo's political ideology can be virtually anything and may even be essentially absent, undeveloped, or simply opportunistic. The Caudillo's power rests in the numbers of his backers and their own willingness to do his bidding. "
Last edited:
- Messages
- 1,642
I’m too tired to get into it and I don’t claim that ChatGPT doesn’t have a host of problems when looking to it for information but I thought I would ask it’s thoughts on your text to see what our AI overlord‘s thought. I asked the question “Do you have any thoughts on the below text?” so as not to frame it in anyway. This was the result:
I would just ask that you consider your language in the future. Thanks.
superrific
Master of the ZZLverse
- Messages
- 10,841
Yeah, well, nothing in my post justified or encouraged anything. Calling something rational is not the same as endorsing it. It was rational for Mitch McConnell to filibuster everything. It was rational for him to refuse to have a vote on Garland. And for that reason, the problem has not gone away. We now just accept 60 votes as a threshold for Senate action. I don't think that's in any way right, but if it were the actions of a lunatic it wouldn't be anything to worry about. The problem is quite obviously that it's not.
How can you stop that problem? Well, the only solution is doing away with the filibuster. Which isn't going to happen if we don't talk about how the filibuster will be abused.
Nobody who knows me could possibly think I was glorifying Gustavo Princip. Nobody who reads that comment would interpret it as saying "attaboy" or "we need more of this." Ignoring the problem will never make it go away. It will never stop anyone with an extremist and violent personality from reading the history books, realizing that Princip did actually achieve his goal. A monumental cost to mankind, perhaps the most horrible war ever fought (save maybe Iran-Iraq), but furthering the cause of Serbian independence. And while I do not expect anyone to copycat him, someone could try a lesser version (or what they think to be a lesser version). Again, because a person who doesn't care all that much about a body count (e.g. Hamas, Netanyahu, etc) but does care about some abstract goal can form their own judgments. They aren't waiting for my approval.
Another guy who achieved his goals through violence was named Osama Bin Laden. 9/11 was, long-term, more spectacularly effective in advancing his horrible agenda than he probably could have dreamed. He fortunately didn't live long enough to see Trump, but he would surely have been thrilled. So maybe back in 2002-03, people should have been saying, "use of war as a partisan political cudgel is exactly what OBL wants us to do," which was a sentiment I rarely heard. There was plenty of debate about the should, but nobody tying it to the expressed goal of the attack. I remember when I read OBL's manifesto, I thought he was a lunatic. And then I saw his prophecy come true/intent was successful. If that's glorifying OBL I don't know what to say.
How can you stop that problem? Well, the only solution is doing away with the filibuster. Which isn't going to happen if we don't talk about how the filibuster will be abused.
Nobody who knows me could possibly think I was glorifying Gustavo Princip. Nobody who reads that comment would interpret it as saying "attaboy" or "we need more of this." Ignoring the problem will never make it go away. It will never stop anyone with an extremist and violent personality from reading the history books, realizing that Princip did actually achieve his goal. A monumental cost to mankind, perhaps the most horrible war ever fought (save maybe Iran-Iraq), but furthering the cause of Serbian independence. And while I do not expect anyone to copycat him, someone could try a lesser version (or what they think to be a lesser version). Again, because a person who doesn't care all that much about a body count (e.g. Hamas, Netanyahu, etc) but does care about some abstract goal can form their own judgments. They aren't waiting for my approval.
Another guy who achieved his goals through violence was named Osama Bin Laden. 9/11 was, long-term, more spectacularly effective in advancing his horrible agenda than he probably could have dreamed. He fortunately didn't live long enough to see Trump, but he would surely have been thrilled. So maybe back in 2002-03, people should have been saying, "use of war as a partisan political cudgel is exactly what OBL wants us to do," which was a sentiment I rarely heard. There was plenty of debate about the should, but nobody tying it to the expressed goal of the attack. I remember when I read OBL's manifesto, I thought he was a lunatic. And then I saw his prophecy come true/intent was successful. If that's glorifying OBL I don't know what to say.