So far only one assassination attempt on Trump and 0 on Clinton.
I'm not advocating anyone go out and try to assassinate them but I am surprised more people haven't tried, isn't killing your leaders what you Americans do?
And with a gun, that was the only attempt, how cliche, remember the time Russia assassinated an ex KGB traitor by poisoning him with Polonium? now that was underhanded and clever.
Other urls found in this thread:
en.wikipedia.org
merriam-webster.com
twitter.com
Just wait until he's actually president. I bet so many bountys are gonna be put on him.
He probably won't Make it through 2016-2017
>le edgy summerfag forgets 9gag watermark.
There have actually been like four on Trump.
Clinton isn't about to be assassinated because she's the Cathedral candidate.
I suspect if he gets in he will be assassinated by the CIA or foreign agents, Obama spent a lot of the G20 reassuring other world leaders trump would not win and I feel the CIA would move to protect the US if Trump did something that jeopardized it.
whats edgy here? also summer fags aren't real.
shes a democrat and largely disliked, a lot of the crazy gun people are conservative.
Right-wing people tend to use their guns for self-defense and shooting. Leftists tend to use them to commit violence.
Hillary is disliked by much of the population, even her constituencies (which, by the way, is why she'll lose), but the (((media))) and the (((political establishment))) are running interference for her on a massive level. The odds of someone attempting to assassinate her are very, very low. Leftist pundits, meanwhile, incite violence against Trump on a daily basis.
so the guy who shot up the abortion clinic was defending himself? or the kid who shot up the black church?
also you need to distinguish American right wing from general right wing because globally conservative extremists tend to kill the most.
anyway I doubt Trump will be assassinated by a random person, however the CIA will probably off him if he wins.
Trump puts himself out there in public almost every day, doing numerous rallies every week for tens of thousands of people at each event.
Clinton, on the other hand, keeps herself insulated and protected. She's only held a handful of rallies this entire time she's been """campaigning""", and when you see photos, there are maybe a hundred carefully-screened people in attendance.
But let's be honest--- assassinations are paid for by the corporate elite, and since Shillary is their puppet, they have no interest in harming her.
>so the guy who shot up the abortion clinic was defending himself? or the kid who shot up the black church?
Nice context denial.
>globally conservative extremists tend to kill the most.
You what? When right-wingers hold rallies in Europe it's antifa that starts throwing bricks.
i'm sorry to tell you this but terrorist groups are generally conservative, like ISIS is technically conservative extremism.
Unless you think ISIS is PC liberal left wing.
when I say globally I mean all forms of conservatism not just western white people bruv.
But left and right wing really only make sense within the context of Western society (and, to a lesser extent, within the politics of countries that have adopted Western government). They represent differing visions of the future of European civilization.
Islam is a different civilization entirely. It's the West's natural enemy, and many of its ideals are at odds with ours, but it's neither liberal nor conservative.
aren't Islamic terrorist coincided conservative?
Depends on how far back you wanna go. Just 70 odd years ago the left-wing governments of the time were responsible for more deaths in a single day than ISIS has done in their entire existence. Nazi Germany, Communist Russia, Communist China. In the grand scheme of history the left-wing has killed more people than the right-wing, by a VERY significant amount at that.
We're in a period where right now, at this very moment, right-wing is killing more people. But nothing ISIS does even begins to compare to the evil the left has inflicted on humanity.
>Russia assassinated an ex KGB traitor by poisoning him with Polonium? now that was underhanded and clever.
Not very clever. Polonium is very difficult to obtain and leaves a trail.
You have never read anything about Nazi Germany if you believe they are leftist.
you would think that but no political ideology can apply and does apply to all nations, most Islamic countries have conservative and liberal parties and religious extremism is classed as conservatism as they ideology is the same just over the top.
you may want to take a few political science classes at your local university, they are acualy interesting.
also the "enemy of the west" is whomever is convenient at the time, in the 60s who was the enemy of the west? i'll give you a hint it wasn't Islam, it wasn't the middle east and it was every communist country.
in 30 years who will be the next "natural enemy" of the west? their will be one, conservatism like fascism (same side of the spectrum acualy) need a boogie man to keep the people rallied. Islam isn't the natural enemy of the west extremism is, radial Islam is everyone's enemy.
Any extremity is dangerous you marxist fuck. China and Russia are both left wing and yet they have some of the most regulated societies in the world.
>Nazi Germany
They where fascist, fascism is right wing on the political spectrum, but I will give you the Soviet Union and China, communism is left wing and it was abused to the absolute worst extreme.
well communism can't not be abused because it's a flawed system, pure communism is basically anarchy which is impossible in large human groups so when put into practice it just becomes dictoral.
Except Islam has been at odds with Europe for thirteen hundred years now, and Communism is a failed ideology created by a Jewish NEET in the early modern era.
I recognize that ideologies across the world share traits, but any "Islamic conservatism" is fundamentally different from European right-wing thought because it has a different ideological underpinning.
At least it was more subtle than just shooting him.
i'm not a Marxist, Carl Marx had an idea that was good on paper but impossible in practice. Communism can't function properly in large human groups and anyone who thinks it can is probably a stupid teenage going through a phase.
I am rather left however but I fully agree with the concepts of a government and free market.
Pot calling the kettle black. Other than the arbitrary "hurr durr fascism is automatically right-wing" there was very little right-wing about Nazi Germany. They were socialists and collectivists. They were not liberals, especially not in the way we see them today. They were nationalistic but they were also socialistic in both economics and society.
Fascism is defined as authoritarian and nationalistic. There's nothing inherently right-wing about it so anyone who says fascism is right-wing is a fucking retard. If you want to claim fascism is exclusively right-wing then tell me what you call a nationalistic and authoritarian left-wing government? Because there is no name for that. If you remove the arbitrary "right-wing" from the definition there's literally nothing about fascism that precludes it from being left-wing. Both right and left can be authoritarian and nationalistic.
Nazi Germany was most assuredly left-wing same as the Soviets or China.
I will like to stop for a second and congratulate you on not doing what most people do in these conversation and just caps lock rant, intelligent people do exist on Sup Forums it seems.
anyway I agree Islam and Christianity have been at odds since the creation of Islam however the bigger threat now isn't just the religion, it's the fact the religion is very easy to radicalize, what we need to do is take away the peoples reasons for radicalizing, and in this case that means stop making them view us as the enemy by bombing civilians 24/7.
I would like to also point out that ISIS is for the most part the fault of the soviet Union and CIA. when the soviets invaded Afghanistan the CIA used religion as a weapon to try and rally the locals to fight against the "evil atheistic communists" and went about training locals and filling them with propaganda, when allw as said and done and the soviets and US pulled out they just left these radicalized solders in their shitty countries to stew and get angry until they started lasing out at everyone around them.
nobody won the Cold War we just all lost, well we kind of lost, WW3 didn't happen so I guess that's a win.
>I'm not advocating anyone go out and try to assassinate them but I am surprised more people haven't tried, isn't killing your leaders what you Americans do?
Only if they are anti establishment and have a chance to be heard.
Fascism is coincided right wing because it falls into the definition of right wing, but it's not me you are arguing against on that one it's historians, scholars and political scientists who say it's right wing.
But I guess when I see the Nazis I immediately think liberal PC open and non racist.
I know Wikipedia isn't a good source but the sources but it sums things up and also has sources at the bottom of the page you can check.
oh...
Even though it's definition says nothing about right-wing.
"
Full Definition of fascism
1
often capitalized : a political philosophy, movement, or regime (as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition
2
: a tendency toward or actual exercise of strong autocratic or dictatorial control "
But alright, then answer my question. What do you call an authoritarian and nationalistic left-wing government?
Also I think I understand your confusion. You think liberalism is the only aspect of the left. Liberalism is not the only facet of the left. You can be authoritarian and still be left-wing. You can be nationalistic and still be left-wing. You can be oppressive and still be left-wing. And guess what Fascism entails?
Nothing in that really disproves what I'm saying. Fascism is defined as authoritarian and nationalistic form of governance. Left-wing can be authoritarian and nationalistic, thus it can be fascist. Fascism is not restricted to one end of the spectrum. You can be a right-wing fascist and you can be a left-wing fascist. Similar to how you can be a right-wing capitalist or a left-wing capitalist. Not everything is restricted to one end of the spectrum.
merriam-webster.com
Yes, oh.
good job, you can unconditionally take the 1st thing google tells you for the truth. you are making a fool out of yourself.