“Oh you think killing literally Hitler would be OK? Think again”

You are arguing against killing Hitler. You’re right that this sounds stupid, because it is.

But your whole post is really beside the point: there are absolutely, positively, beyond any doubt politicians who could justifiably be assassinated. Set aside guesswork about how such an act would have played out – the act itself would obviously be justified. It would in no way make you worse than Hitler, or even anywhere near as reprehensible.

At this point your faced with 2 options. Assassination or choosing the lesser evil.

The most absurd false dichotomy I’ve seen in a while, nice.

“Honestly the first choice just makes you the greater evil.”

“Killing Hitler just makes you worse than Hitler” – outstanding logic. Literally everyone outside of hardcore pacifists would agree there are certain politicians that it is OK to assassinate.

Roosevelt, believing Stalin was not serious, quipped that “maybe 49,000 would be enough.”

Gets me every time

Also worth noting that 50k represented a tiny fraction of the Nazi military – there were well over a million people under arms right up until the end of the war. So Stalin and Roosevelt were already talking about officers and units that did the worst atrocities, not some mass retribution against the bulk of the military itself.

You have one ass and pretend it’s a mouth

Well thanks for at least providing an honest answer since the other guy couldn’t answer a direct question to save his life.

You don’t get to be a condescending asshole and then whine over stuff like this; incredibly soft posting

https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/11/hillary-clinton-2016-donald-trump-214428

So to take [Jeb] Bush down, Clinton’s team drew up a plan to pump Trump up. Shortly after her kickoff, top aides organized a strategy call, whose agenda included a memo to the Democratic National Committee: “This memo is intended to outline the strategy and goals a potential Hillary Clinton presidential campaign would have regarding the 2016 Republican presidential field,” it read.

“The variety of candidates is a positive here, and many of the lesser known can serve as a cudgel to move the more established candidates further to the right. In this scenario, we don’t want to marginalize the more extreme candidates, but make them more ‘Pied Piper’ candidates who actually represent the mainstream of the Republican Party,” read the memo.

“Pied Piper candidates include, but aren’t limited to:

• Ted Cruz
• Donald Trump
• Ben Carson

We need to be elevating the Pied Piper candidates so that they are leaders of the pack and tell the press to [take] them seriously."

…

An agenda item for top aides’ message planning meeting read, “How do we prevent Bush from bettering himself/how do we maximize Trump and others?"

You want to throw someone in jail without a trial or having their day in court?

Lmao hell yes I do, this happens for literally every serious criminal case (and a bunch of not-so-serious ones, too). If you actually took the idea that Trump is a fascist seriously, you’d be asking why shouldn’t he simply have been shot.

Everybody knows he’s guilty, however if you don’t get everything just right then he gets away on a technicality.

If everybody knows a fascist is a fascist and your only solution is to follow the rules real hard and hope, you are a danger to the country and should be nowhere near the levers of power.

one candidate has already attempted to overthrow democracy

If Democrats actually thought this, Trump (at minimum) would have been in federal prison on Biden’s first day in office.

They either don’t believe he’s a fascist or are utterly incapable of dealing with fascists.

Yeah, because short of escalating to WWIII the war was lost from the jump. Is being right about that for two years a bad thing? Is losing two years and a ton of casualties later worth anything?

“A second _________ has hit the _________”

I believe they did an IPO

I don’t think he’s talking about search and seizure laws in foreign countries. Reads to me like “this is not a war zone, you don’t need 10 guys with rifles and armor to safely go talk to someone.”

massive fragile ego, frankly horrible, acting shitty, basic fucking table stakes

you come across as hostile

Go back to reddit

If you can take a moment to move your massive, fragile ego out of the way

Lmao do you think of yourself as a professional?

The “1 in 5” probably makes it sound way more prevalent than it actually is.

• Say you have 5 companies that interviewed 200 people each in the recent past
• 1 candidate had a parent come to their interview (which could mean “driving them to the interview and waiting in the lobby,” which is still weird but nowhere near the connotation of “sat in and listened to interview questions”)
• 1 in 5 companies will report they’ve had a parent come to an interview, even though 0.1% of candidates brought a parent

It’s impossible to create a survey that transmits people’s actual thoughts directly to you. Every single survey, ever, has flaws and biases. The game is figuring out the bias, how significant it is, and if you can get anything useful out of the results.

Thank goodness we have people willing to organically repeat what companies say with zero analysis, we don’t get enough of that in every major media outlet

The death penalty is not abolitionist. If you think they should just kill this guy but are also vaguely in favor of prison abolition, there’s a real contradiction you need to work out.