Die Verurteilung politischer Gewalt sollte „universell“ sein, aber Donald Trump „Cherry Picks“, die kritisieren sollten, sagt Josh Shapiro

No shit, Sherlock. 

Cherry pick? Josh forget about the Jan 6th orchard?

Moral Americans need to step to a model kindness and grace. We need to counter the bigotry and hate Trump and his supporters bring to the world.

Shapiro is a spineless moderate. As far as I’m concerned, all of our moderate elected officials are. If you aren’t willing to do something to bring fascism in our country to a screeching halt and finally say no to big money in our government, you’re useless and should go home.

Spot on

He’s right

Donald Trump is doing whatever is necessary to distract us from the Epstein files.

Of course he cherry picks, he’s dirty Donald. But don’t take your eye off the ball here. Anything he’s doing right now is being done with the intent to distract from the Epstein files.

There’s plenty of fingers pointed in various directions about the character of certain voters, but one can tell where the base of a party is at by who they choose to repeatedly nominate and vote for to the highest offices. Republicans knew Trump is an indicted and convicted felon who incited an insurrection, cares nothing for out laws and Constitution and routinely stokes division and violence. They knew much of that about him before J6. They still nominated and voted for him a third straight time.

This isn’t “somebody says.” This is an undeniably factual statement.

Yet this guy flew the flags at half staff the whole weekend for that trash Kirk

Did you cherry pick which bombs to sign?

Why is calling for your political opponents and ‚undesirables‘ to be executed, deported, or thrown in camps because they are „enemies within,“ „vermin,“ or are „poisoning the blood“ of this country like Trump has done not „inciting violence“, but pointing out that those saying it are using the exact language of fascist, is?

Why is that supporting the killing of innocent people in Gaza or killing people without due process — like so many Republicans in this country have — not a fireable offense, but saying that you are not going to feel sympathy for someone who advocated for removing the rights of marginalized communities and praised extrajudicial killings, is?

Why is someone saying my LGBTQ friends and family are a „social contagion,“ an „abomination,” and a “throbbing middle finger to God,” is seen as a kind, Christ loving person who definitely isn’t inciting violence towards those groups, but someone who points out those are horrible, evil, and dangerous beliefs and condemns them is seen inciting violence towards the original speaker?

Why is trying to violently overthrow our democracy by sending thousands to invade our Capitol to stop the counting of ballots so false electors could be counted instead not political violence, but pointing out the people who supported those actions are anti-democratic is inciting political violence?

Why are Black people being extrajudicially killed by agents of the state and those same agents often lying about it and covering them up not political violence, but people who are not state agents who have been historically oppressed burning down a building — something that can be rebuilt — is?

Why is declaring war on and invading US cities and deporting people without due process to foreign concentration camps not considered political violence, but charging and locking up people who attempted to overthrow our government or kidnap a governor is?

Why is extrajudicially killing people…people with spouses, kids, siblings, and parents… through the use of state power applauded and supported seen as a moral good not to be spoken up against, but noting that 6x as many politically motivated murders in this country are done by right-wing extremists compared to left-wing extremists is?

It is the same reason the American far right, who statiscally by everg measure are easily the most pro-violence people in the country, are out in force, led by their political violence party known as „Republican,“ fomenting further violence in the name of anti-violence, quashing free speech in the name of free speech, and demolishing democracy in the name of saving democracy.

It seems inconsistent, no? Hypocritical, right?

But it works. It works if and only if you realize who they believe are people and who they believe are not people, and if you listen to them, they’ll tell you.

In the halls of power, on the platforms of influence, naming hate is considered dangerous, uncivil, and hateful and out-of-bounds, but actual hateful incitement is not. Opposing instruments of violence is considered violence, but actual escalating ongoing violence is not.

And while this may seem like a contradiction, it is actually represents a very consistent ideology, which was often Charlie Kirk’s ideology: supremacy…and for many conservatives, often white supremacy.

The violence that Charlie Kirk or other white conservatives experience is unacceptable. But to supremacists, the violence everyone else experiences is either entirely justified or a sad but totally unpreventable tragedy, and which it is depends entirely on who we are. Were you killed by a trans woman or a homeless Black person? Your death was a tragedy, and the killer is emblematic of all trans people and homeless people, who must now be hounded and killed. Were you killed by a white conservative radicalized by people like the President? Well, your death is sad but unpreventable. Homeless Black veteran expelled from a mental institution? Your death is totally justified, the killer is a hero, and this incident should serve as a warning about homeless people and „Black crime.“

It’s worth pondering who gets the privilege of having the violence committed against them deemed political violence, and who has to bear the burden of having their very existence be deemed political violence.