The tragedy is that several players in the transformer market went out of business because they ramped up due to the building boom before the financial crisis. If I weren’t busy I’d go buy one of those old factories and open it back up. Great boring business to be in.

None of that matters, though. Democracy continues working because the transition of power persists.

If you disagree, there are plenty of other countries you can immigrate to that don't practice democracy. But this is how America works, and I'll defend it to the last even if I disagree with the extremists.

Shinzo Abe's killer was captured immediately, he had to walk right in front of him to get a shot off.

Charlie Kirk's assassin is still at-large and fired from a standoff distance, with a conventional long-barrel firearm.

Make of that what you will.

Just because you can cite an example of a killing without a gun says nothing about the reality about gun violence and gun culture in the USA.

The Nazis and the Communists won enough seats between them in 1932 that it was impossible for Hindenburg to form a government without one or the other. Hitler didn't win a majority, but he won more seats than anyone else, which was enough to ultimately finagle his way to the Chancellorship through broadly legitimate means. I'd call that an electoral victory, albeit a weaselly one.

Of course, then the Reichstag caught fire, and that was about it for Weimar democracy. But up until that point, his political success came off the back of genuine popularity at the ballot box. He only managed to became Chancellor because enough people voted for him.

Trump is actively arresting and deporting people for participating in pro-Palestine protests. What are Democrats doing that is even a fraction as censorious?

That doesn't really address anything in the post you responded to. Are you sure you replied to the right post? Usually replies address the post they respond to.

If you're intentionally responding to just any post to vent your anger at people who you disagree with (i.e. it wasn't a mistake) then feel free to ignore me.

> I cannot believe that people think that violence is a good answer to anything.

There is quite a bit of philosophical arguments and discussions backing violence as _a_ solution, albeit not the only solution and usually one reserved for when other measures fail.

Look to this treatise as a start[1]

If you think it’s never a solution then all you have done is unilaterally disarmed, and ceded decision making power to those who still keep violence in their toolbox

[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_War

I don't follow what you're trying to say here.

If you think that encouraging empathy is a bad thing and discouraging empathy is good, then there's little hope for you. The lack of empathy can easily be shown to lead to the evils of Nazism and the desire to be cruel to people who are not "in our group" (e.g. their skin colour is different or were born elsewhere)

Who are "we," and what is it that "you're" not putting up with? The last act of violence comparable to this (against a Republican, that is—two Minnesota Democrats were shot in June¹) was the 2024 attempt on Trump's life, where the shooter was a registered Republican who espoused anti-immigrant sentiments on social media².

I give it better than even odds that the Kirk shooter, if they have any coherent political views at all, is right of centre. That's where all the violent radicalization is happening right now.

[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2025_shootings_of_Minnesota_le... [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Matthew_Crooks#Politica...

This is quite backwards. Right now revolts in France are useless. When they were useful back in the days, a lot of citizens had guns. Guns laws changed to reduce their powers

We are 68 million and between hunters and sport shooters we have 5 million firearms owners for 10 million firearms. It's not on par with the US of course but I'd say firearms are pretty common (and it's not even counting illegal ones) and frankly it's not difficult nor long to acquire a good bolt action rifle and learn to shoot an apple at 200m. Long story short: I don't think lack firearms control is the issue in the US, there must be something else.

[flagged]

That's only because they cut back on the cartoons they draw.

The parent comment isn't celebrating his death. They did however cut off the quote, so I will render it in full here:

  "I think it’s worth to have a cost of, unfortunately, some gun deaths every single year so that we can have the second amendment to protect our other God-given rights. That is a prudent deal. It is rational."

The legacy Kirk leaves behind isn't incorrect or worth discarding; some violence is a part of any collective society. But at what point does the deal stop being prudent? How many politicians, schoolkids and religious groups have to be shot up before we reassess our laws? If we never stop, then the cycle is always waiting to start up again. The tinderbox can be lit for any reason, and give any administration just cause for martial law and "emergency powers" abuse.

[flagged]

Why does a group have to marginalized to be worthy of advocacy? Charlie only ever expressed his opinion in written and verbal form. That is the bare minimum requirement for free speech. Once you start getting to “oh but this is hate speech” or “ free speech, but XYZ” then there is no free speech. The first amendment becomes meaningless.

He never suppressed or oppressed anyone like what DEI has been doing by openly discriminating against people based on their skin color (and therefore presumed financial status).

He had no version of correct and he didn’t want anyone to suffer. He merely spoke and wrote his opinion and for that “crime” and that alone, someone decided to hate him so much that they decided to silence him forever.

This is sad and shameful (as have been the attacks and assassinations of any elected official or public figure in the past many months).

It will be a legitimate value when employers who abuse the presence of undocumented immigrants are held criminally accountable, and/or when legislators take action, per bipartisan request, to legalize the de facto state of immigration in the Americas, of whatever character and magnitude that social stability can afford. Until then, it's just xenophobia and racism, and especially egregious because a good number of "immigrants" are the descendants of people who've lived on and migrated around this continent for 10,000+ years.

We've been deporting illegal immigrants for as long as there has been an immigration policy--and yes, that policy is bipartisan. See the data at https://ohss.dhs.gov/topics/immigration/yearbook/2022/table3... -- and consider who held office when the removal rate doubled in 1997. (2021 is an anomalous year, for reasons you can probably guess.)

The contentious issue is not whether the law is being enforced, but rather how it is enforced. Most first-world countries do it with a certain amount of decorum. We've been doing it since Trump regained office with a shock-and-awe approach that is highly disruptive, violent, and of questionable legality.