343
Minnesota House speaker, her husband shot and killed in 'assassination'
(www.thecentersquare.com)
this post was submitted on 14 Jun 2025
343 points (98.9% liked)
politics
24148 readers
3644 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
The comment in question pulled a "both sides" on an issue that is beyond overwhelmingly coming from the right side of the spectrum.
Two Democratic state Senators were just brutally attacked, and at least one killed. That's not the time for Democrats to introspect, it's a time to be outraged.
Drawing some kind of similarity between internet commenters wishing a conservative assassin had succeeded in killing Trump, and a (almost certainly) right wing chud actually assassinating two Democratic Senators is bullshit. Political violence in this country comes almost entirely one direction. Pretending otherwise just blunts that reality and makes future attacks all the more likely.
I agree with outrage. I don't agree with violence as a reaction though. My point being that the whole narrative of "violence is right to fight back" is the exact same mindset this shooter had. In his mind, he thought violence is right to fight back, and he used it. Do you think this is a good thing?
I'm saying it's wrong. But hey, you keep advocating for violence. Let me know how what works for you. I'm not going to join in your bloodlust and I don't care what side you are on. Be sure let us know how your FBI interview goes after they read this thread.
Who called for violence as a reaction? Anyways, it doesn't seem like this guy is likely to come quietly when the cops find him, so I do have to wonder what you think the cops should do if he is armed and refuses to negotiate or surrender? Some level of violence may just end up being the correct reaction. We shall see.
Uh, OK. I'll stay by the phone.
Read the thread. You don't see anyone in this thread that things violence is warrented?
So, nobody.
Ahhh, I guess i just read most of the comments here wrong. My bad.
So you're saying that you and everyone in this thread agree that violence is not the answer then? No one in this thread advocates violence against the republicans. Correct?
So everyone agrees that violence is no the answer? Good, glad I was so wrong. Because I definitely think violence against any politician is wrong. Glad I am in good company and cooler heads prevail.
What does "violence is not the answer" exactly mean? I see several people pointing out that it sometimes is the answer. I don't see anyone calling for violence as a reaction to this incident, which is what you claimed.
That means that I hope no one retaliates with violence, for the awful thing that happened with the democrats shooting. And that I don't think violence against an politician for anything is called for. What else do you think I would mean?
Ok, then I am glad this thread agrees that no one believes that violence is warranted. So people here agree that this no politician should have violence inflicted upon them? Correct? Good, I think that's a sensible way to approach it. And I'm glad cooler heads are prevailing.
I'm unsure why some people seem to be annoyed that I an calling for non-violence. Especially since everyone agrees. I'm glad no one is calling for violence against politicians.
Wait, so I am confused. I said that some people seemed to be for violence, and you said I was wrong. Now you are saying that a lot in this thread disagree with my statement that violence isn't the answer.
Please disengage from this conversation. You and I are not going to agree on the violence thing. I don't advocate violence against any politician regardless of party. I hope this shooter gets caught, stands trial, and goes to prison for rest of his life. Good day to you.
What is this, an Abbott and Costello bit? The words in a sentence are important - all of them. There are differences between people being for violence (as if that's a thing), people recognizing that violence is sometimes necessary, people thinking that violence is appropriate in response to this issue, and people calling for violence. Those all mean different things. Maybe you throw them all in the same mental bucket, but they are not the same. This is a symptom of thinking in thought terminating cliches. That used to be a Republican thing, but its sad how often I'm seeing it now on the left.
Which is fine. There is nothing wrong with us disagreeing on that. The problem is when you mix that in with accusations that I (and others) support violence in cases where we don't, or claim we are calling for violence in response to this incident when we have done no such thing.
Sure, I have no doubt that you can keep it going all by yourself. You really don't need me for it.
disengage
You don't get to decide when others disengage, only yourself. If you don't want more replies, just stop commenting.
You just had a comment in this thread removed for advocating violence. You trying to get your comments removed for slapfighting too or what? Just move on. wth?! you made your point. I made my point. let it go
Mods will mod. I don't think that comment should have been removed, but I'm not going to protest it.
I'll go with "what". I'm not sure the mods will penalize me for not following your commands.
It may go whenever it wants.
Well, based on your the history of you getting stuff removed, our conversation here is done. I'm now blocking you, so I won't see your reply. Good luck! Looks like you are gonna need it in your life.