“This will be a time for all citizens of the USA to celebrate!” he continued. “This guy turned out to be a Woke train wreck who, if the Fake News reporting is correct, was actually dealing with China to give them a heads up on the thinking of the President of the United States. This is an act so egregious that, in times gone by, the punishment would have been DEATH!”
Not seeing a complete screenshot or repost of whatever he said
Late Friday night, the former president of the United States—and a leading candidate to be the next president—insinuated that America’s top general deserves to be put to death. That extraordinary sentence would be unthinkable in any other rich democracy. But Donald Trump, on his social-media network, Truth Social, wrote that Mark Milley’s phone call to reassure China in the aftermath of the storming of the Capitol on January 6, 2021, was “an act so egregious that, in times gone by, the punishment would have been DEATH.” (The phone call was, in fact, explicitly authorized by Trump-administration officials.) Trump’s threats against Milley came after The Atlantic’s publication of a profile of Milley, by this magazine’s editor in chief Jeffrey Goldberg, who detailed the ways in which Milley attempted to protect the Constitution from Trump. And yet, none of the nation’s front pages blared “Trump Suggests That Top General Deserves Execution” or “Former President Accuses General of Treason.” Instead, the post barely made the news. Most Americans who don’t follow Trump on social media probably don’t even know it happened.
Trump’s rhetoric is dangerous, not just because it is the exact sort that incites violence against public officials but also because it shows just how numb the country has grown toward threats more typical of broken, authoritarian regimes. The United States is not just careening toward a significant risk of political violence around the 2024 presidential election. It’s also mostly oblivious to where it’s headed. Trump loves to hide behind the thin veneer of plausible deniability, but he knows exactly what he’s doing. If a mob boss were to say, “In times gone by, people like you would have had their legs broken,” nobody would mistake that for a historical observation. The suggestion is clear, and it comes from a man who has one of America’s loudest megaphones—one that is directed squarely at millions of extremists who are well armed, who insist that the government is illegitimate, and who believe that people like Milley are part of a “deep state” plot against the country. Academics have a formal term for exactly this type of incitement: stochastic terrorism. An influential figure with a large following demonizes a person or a group of people. The likelihood is strong that some small number of followers will take those words literally—when Trump implies that Milley deserves to be put to death, some of his disciples might take it as a marching order. The number of those who take action does not have to be large for the result to be horrific.
Already, one of Trump’s minions in Congress has echoed the incitement to violence. The Republican Paul Gosar of Arizona wrote—in his taxpayer-funded newsletter, no less—that “in a better society, quislings like the strange sodomy-promoting General Milley would be hung.” The meaning is not ambiguous: Gosar is explicitly saying that killing Milley would be desirable. From the November 2023 Issue: The Patriot As a political scientist who studies political violence across the globe, I would chalk up the lack of high-profile assassinations in the United States during the Trump and post-Trump era to dumb luck. Already in 2018, one deranged Trump follower, Cesar Sayoc, sent pipe bombs to public figures (and a media organization) who just so happened to be among those whom Trump most often attacked in his Twitter feed. Thankfully, nobody died—not because the dangers of Trump’s rhetoric were overstated but because Sayoc was bad at building bombs. Heading toward one of the most consequential, divisive elections in American history, every ingredient in the deadly recipe for political violence is already in the mix: high-stakes, winner-take-all politics; widespread conspiratorial delusions that detach followers from objective realities; a suggestion that one’s political opponents aren’t “real Americans”; a large supply of violent extremists with easy access to deadly weaponry; and a movement whose leader takes every opportunity to praise those who have already participated in a deadly attack on the government.
Eventually, all luck runs out. Political violence is notoriously difficult to forecast with precision, but would anyone really be surprised if Trump’s violent rhetoric led to real-world attacks in the run-up to the 2024 election—or in its aftermath, if he loses? For all of these reasons, Trump’s recent unhinged rant about Milley should be a wake-up call. But in today’s political climate, the incident barely registers. Trump scandals have become predictably banal. And American journalists have become golden retrievers watching a tennis-ball launcher. Every time they start to chase one ball, a fresh one immediately explodes into view, prompting a new chase. Eventually, chasing tennis balls gets old. We become more alive to virtually any distraction: The media fixate on John Fetterman’s hoodie instead of on stories about the relentless but predictable risk of Trump-inspired political violence. Bombarded by a constant stream of deranged authoritarian extremism from a man who might soon return to the presidency, we’ve lost all sense of scale and perspective. But neither the American press nor the public can afford to be lulled. The man who, as president, incited a violent attack on the U.S. Capitol in order to overturn an election is again openly fomenting political violence while explicitly endorsing authoritarian strategies should he return to power. That is the story of the 2024 election. Everything else is just window dressing.
According to the OP, zoomer will never talk to you again if you disagree “hard enough.”
Just say “Has it ever occurred to you that everyone else drinks coffee wrong? I am the world’s best coffee drinker. Donald Trump and Elon Musk have both told me so on Twitter. In fact, Vogue magazine has been trying to schedule me doing a drink out for the last three years. I have denied going on the Joe Rogan Experience twice already out of principles. As you may have surmised, the topic would have been about the proper way to drink coffee. In fact, I know I was drinking coffee, correctly may I add, the exact moment of your conception. I know because that’s how great at drinking coffee I am. But thank you for your concern.”
As someone in Gen Z, I agree. We’re the first generation to grow up in a world where echo chambers are an established concept and a lot of people aren’t aware of that.
I actively try to avoid echo chambers and general tribalism and I also try to always look at the matter at hand instead of the people involved, but I still find my debating skills sub-par. The only way to improve those is by practice, so let’s hope that Gen Z is just a bit behind due to the pandemic.
Criticizing someone for terrible behavior they actually exhibit is one thing; assuming someone is a terrible person because they disagree with you about something is bigotry.
So many “proud gun owner here.” So lame. People and their guns are so fucking paranoid and pathetic. Sold my handgun a lloooooooooong time ago when I realized that I have NEVER been in a position to need one.
I didn’t believe you at first then scrolled down a bit and saw them. Australia banned guns, it was the right thing to do, people who need guns still have them. But not bloody assault rifles. These idiots need to look at themselves in the mirror and realise that they have an obsession with a tool designed on a single purpose, killing and most of which designed for killing humans.
No criminals won’t follow the law but everyone has the potential to break the law or steal guns from someone who does abide by the law. It’s tough but they are killing machines and if you can’t see that you are a f*cking idiot
These idiots need to look at themselves in the mirror and realise that they have an obsession with a tool designed on a single purpose, killing and most of which designed for killing humans.
Have you considered it may be you with the obsession, given your fixation on firearms to the complete neglect of the underlying issues of violence?
No criminals won’t follow the law but everyone has the potential to break the law or steal guns from someone who does abide by the law. It’s tough but they are killing machines and if you can’t see that you are a f*cking idiot
Not to interrupt what’s clearly a rational take in rant form, but logically, one should address the killing rather than quibbling about the implement used.
A gun is more dangerous than a knife, killing people is illegal but it doesn’t stop the school shootings in the land of the free. Easy access to guns makes this possible, it’s much harder to mass kill people with a knife
Easy access to guns makes this possible, it’s much harder to mass kill people with a knife
Ah, I see - there are zero differences between the United States and the Aussieland beyond the set of legislative differences regarding firearms and the prevalence of ownership of those firearms.
It’s weird that you double-down on only caring these things happen by firearms, apparently encouraging such by knife.
Regarding general violence, there’s much to indicate the actions needed to resolve the high-profile-yet-miniscule-count mass shootings would overlap with general violence and homicide. From there, extend to adding the necessary social safety nets to protect an individual from being exposed to and pressured into such dire extremes.
You know… actually improve lives rather than clutch pearls that those poor souls used firearms in their violence.
No idea why so many people think gun are easy to obtain. Who told you that? What’s your real-life experience?
I ran with some seriously sketchy people in my youth, hardly ever even saw a gun, let alone one for sale. I’ve bought 40+ guns and only one did not require a background check and a wait. (Good friend had a new baby, hard up for rent, did it as a favor.)
I have school age children, so I can hardly downplay school shootings, but they’re far more rare than the media leads us to believe. Hear about the 4 kids that got smeared off the side of the road in $YourCity yesterday? One thing is national news, the other is not.
Yep, it’s harder to kill people with a knife. Also takes a lot more guts to go “wet” vs. pulling a trigger. No arguments. But if I’m defending myself, or another, I’m not interested in less lethal options.
And are you the arbiter of my needs? Lay eyes on any apex predators this weekend? I did. Camp on a lonely riverbank far from any sort of civil authority? I did. Bet conservatives have plenty to say about what you do or don’t need. Want them to choose for you?
I’m a liberal and have an AR-15 “assault rifle”. If it comes to defending my life, or the life of another, you wish for me to have second best? Are you proposing I bring a “knife” (lesser weapon) to a gunfight? You are aware that conservatives, who have been quite vocal about killing political adversaries, are well armed? Who do you wish to disarm? Citizens that obey the law? Because those are the only folks you’re going to restrict.
Plenty of other reasons to own an AR-15, but we may be headed towards a time when an American Gestapo is real. Will you be able to fight back when they come knocking? If it’s death or concentration camp, I choose fight.
And speaking of my AR, know why I got it? Fellow libs sold it to me! They shit themselves screaming BAN! after Uvalde, figured I’d better get mine in case they got their way. Hell, I had ~30 guns before that, and no interest in an AR. Good job?
While we’re at it, if libs would stop screaming for bans of ridiculous things like magazines, maybe they would win every election in a landslide. I suppose your morals are more important than winning. And that’s a conservative take if I ever heard one.
It was your choice to camp there and potentially interrupt nature by shooting apex predators. Don’t bring up the safety argument if you’re going to do that
I’ve also had a black bear cruise in my dog door, presumably, according to the regional Fish & Wildlife guy, to eat my pet mini pig. Guess I have no business living on the edge of town?
Also, had to shoot a wild boar that was tearing into my property and terrifying my pet. How, pray tell, would you have dealt with that situation? And keep in mind, the civil authorities all told me, “Not our problem, we don’t handle wild pigs, all on you.”
So where exactly am I perfectly safe? In the white-bread suburbia where you live with your parents?
And if nothing else, gun laws always have been wildly racist in their origins and enforcement. Bet you’re A-OK with all that! (Or more probably, don’t know or care.)
Thank god you’re one of the actually sane ones, but you should know better than anyone that you are not going to argue a liberal down. Liberals tend to be the most set in their political beliefs.
You will not get anywhere with this argument, take my advice and leave. Take my advice, this happens to me all the time.
In the white-bread suburbia where you live with your parents?
You must be real proud of yourself with that one. I live in a rural area on a large property with wild animals, it is possible to hire people to deal with the threat posed by wild animals, forgoing the risk of having firearms in your house
Oh look, another confidently incorrect Australian putting their piece into a gun debate.
Australia banned guns,
Australia definitely has not banned civilian firearm ownership.
it was the right thing to do
Very debatable. Letting the government have the monopoly on lethal tools is giving a lot of trust to the people a fairly significant portion of the population consider corrupt.
people who need guns still have them.
Considering you think civilians can’t have firearms I’d be surprised you even know what people can own in your own country
But not bloody assault rifles.
Americans can’t even own (new) assault rifles. AR15’s are not assault rifles, and civilians do own them in Australia too, ask me how I know.
These idiots need to look at themselves in the mirror and realise that they have an obsession with a tool designed on a single purpose, killing and most of which designed for killing humans.
They definitely do not have a single purpose, anyone who blindly says this has no idea how huge shooting sports are. In most western countries it’s literally the biggest sport participation wise by a huge margin.
No criminals won’t follow the law but everyone has the potential to break the law or steal guns from someone who does abide by the law.
Don’t need to do that these days, submachine guns are super easy to manufacture at home, rifles and pistols are just around the corner. You’d probably be surprised how many illegal firearms are already out there, the ADF has lost a lot of stuff over the years too.
It’s tough but they are killing machines and if you can’t see that you are a f*cking idiot
You can say that about so many more things than firearms, the end use is what always matters though. I’d be able to argue the opposite when shooting sports are the safest sport to participate in, in Australia anyway.
You are so cool. There are a lot of people who have absolutely no business ever owning a gun and the less in hands of uneducated, untrained and ignorant individuals the better.
Weird. I’m semi-closeted and get to listen to various people (including coworkers) talk about how they want to murder “fags”. I’ve had people threaten me with violence because they thought I was coming on to them. I’m sitting here watching politicians argue for criminalizing the existence of people like me while armed gangs of uniformed young men march around calling for the death of “degenerates”.
You’re right: I’m probably just paranoid and there’s nothing to worry about.
I haven’t been in a position to need a gun for about 15 years, since I moved out of the poor areas I grew up in. I don’t own any guns and have no intention of buying one.
But I support the rights of gun owners. The 2nd amendment is very clear. Just because I don’t want one, doesn’t mean I can demand other people give theirs up. Or shame them for wanting the government to respect their rights.
51 years old. I, nor anyone I know has ever been in a situation where a gun would have changed the outcome for the better. And while I know this is anecdotal as well, it’s a clear indicator to me that they’re unnecessary in day-to-day living.
Bit rich of you to ask for facts and then give an antidotal argument when you don’t like my facts. But if you want antidotal evidence yes I have had to use a firearm in self-defense so because of that antidotal experience I would say that we should respect the rights of the citizenry to own firearms.
I’ve personally been stalked by, and unexpectedly face-to-face with, a mountain lion while out hunting with my dad.
You can pointlessly quibble about need, but the fact remains that my .357 was the only effective thing between it and I. I was lucky it didn’t want a two-for.
Feel free to continue making such faulty assumptions - it highlights the extent to which you lack the empathy to try and understand other points of view and the imagination to contemplate things outside what you’ve considered.
Bullshit. And even if it were true, hunting isn’t even what’s being questioned here, and you know it. You’ve manufactured what you think is the perfect argument to support guns, but it falls flat.
I’ve related an actual experience from my life. Frankly, I don’t care if you believe me or not - that you cannot even fathom such a possibility speaks volumes.
If you’re 51 you’re the most immature 51-year-old I’ve ever had them misfortune to meet. Reading over your comments over the last day or two I would have to say it’s much more likely that you’re about 24. The entirety of your nuance prose and wit boil down to "Fuck you I’m right and your small and stupid because I said so. ". Is it any wonder you’re so popular in this thread and have so many supporters diving in with you.
And you’re one to talk. The fact that you seem to determine validity from the invalid based on worthless internet points clearly shows your maturity level.
But since we’re there, let’s look at total comment scores shall we? Our accounts are the same age….
Anyways, no I was not reading your comment score I was reading the comments that you were writing and I was analyzing the grammar and syntax that you were using to try to place your age.
But if you want to go down that route firstly my account is less than a month old and yours is over 2 months old. But age does not mean much what matters is quality.
you have a score of 9959 and you have made 1196 comments this means on average each comet you make is worth 8.3 points.
I have 982 points and I’ve made 89 comments so each of mine is worth 11 points. So by your own chosen criteria yes I am better than you.
If you factor in the number of posts it looks even worse for you… Do you concede?
Yeah, I’ll just say if I’m working, I just don’t wanna hear politics brought up at all. I’d rather focus on work or maybe small talk. I don’t wanna end up in a scenario where I expose my political views only to find I’ve made enemies with the wrong people in a company or group.
HA as much as im amused by the idea of being in the radical politics generation i agree with this, politics dont belong in the workplace & it’s better to shut it down & not. also jesus christ politics are polarized sometimes, why the hell would anyone LGBTQ want to befriend somebody who holds the opinion all trans people are pedos?
I do but only with people I’ve actually made friends with who I’m pretty sure will either agree with me or at least respect my point of view. I’ll share mildly political articles in discussion groups for those specific things at work sometimes, but those are places where people have specifically opted in to hearing about them and are interested in the topics.
news
Newest
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.