Nothing helps stop Trump bleeding support from the senior woman demographic quite like a young whippersnapper punching a 70-year-old woman to the ground for her support of Harris.
When I think of conservatives, I always think of youths sucker punching old Asian women in the back of the head because of Covid. This is typical.
just MAGAt shit.
Domestic terrorist. She was attacked by a domestic terrorist. This crime would seem to meet the DHS definition.
We need to start calling this crap what it is.
Damn right it does. This individual needs to be charged and prosecuted.
This guy should definitely face punishment, but maybe we shouldn’t dilute the term “domestic terrorism” with something like this…
What else do you call an unprovoked, politically charged attack?
In this case? Assault and battery.
Assault and battery are tools used by terrorists in terroristic ways, though. It can be both.
This isn’t on the same level of terrorism as a whole group doing the terror, but it’s still terrorism by definition, because it is politically motivated. This kid assaulted this old lady in order to terrorize her from exercising her political rights.
How very Florida.
What an absolute weak turd holy hell.
more of that to come if the angry orange gets installed
Or if he doesn’t.
There’s going to be violence. More people will die because of him, and i can’t do anything about it and I’m going insane.
We can’t accept that as inevitable. I don’t like it either but there has to be some way that we can avoid this “there’s gonna be civil war” discourse, because all it does is wind people up
Not a war. But definitely some level of rioting and domestic terrorism.
Glad he is charged. What a jackass.
I’m going to stand in line to vote tomorrow…should I take my can of Fox 5.3?
Big tough guy sucker punched an old lady. Trump would be proud if it were possible for him to give a shit about anyone but himself.
Not only that:
According to witnesses, Bossio said, the 17-year-old was walking away from a separate altercation with a male Harris supporter when he struck Tomasko and knocked her to the ground.
He did it because he was pissed at a male supporter but was too big of a wuss to throw hands with someone who could plausibly fight back, so to solve that, he sucker-punched an old lady. They’re not just abusive garbage, they’re pathetic cowards.
About as courageous as his role model.
Trump supporters are lower than snake shit.
I told my coworker today that there is no good trump supporter. They’ll are either ignorant, selfish, or vile. The first group i dont blame because they’re idiots, the other 2 groups can go fuck off to the void.
The scared, stupid, and selfish model. You don’t have to be all three, but any one of them and Trump will take advantage of it to bring you over.
I am all three but I am still not a vile enough piece of shit to choose Donald.
You’re missing the vile people. There are people looking forward to the next Civil war. Saddly my aunt is one so i know it must be more common then we all would hope.
That would be a combo of 2 and 3.
No it is not. People fucking wish for ww3 without benefitting from it. And theres the true nazis that just wanna kill people. Those do not jusy fit 2 and 3.
deleted by creator
Snakes at least keep rat populations under control
Trump enthusiasts generally are rats
Seems unkind to rats.
Rats are smart.
Not these ones. Some of these ones think there are Jewish space lasers and wear sanitary pads on their ears to impress the king rat.
Damn, if only there were more venomous snakes at Trump rallies.
Now That’s Republican Toughness! ^TM
The lil shit isn’t even old enough to vote
He’s certainly old enough to get real time if they try him as an adult for aggravated assault.
At this rate he will never be able to vote.
Honestly, I hope he gets to vote in the future. Everyone should serve their punishment and get the chance to learn from it.
You should just never lose it. Voting isn’t a privilege to be awarded for good behavior, never mind that laws are sometimes themselves unjust and often disproportionately applied. Should people in prison for weed possession be unable to express their opinion about whether weed should be illegal?
Voting is both important and generally not that critical. The idea matters a lot more than the actual impact most votes have. There’s just not much in the way of compelling benefit to denying prisoners their vote and plenty of risk of the law, either intentionally or unintentionally, being an implement that can affect who gets to vote on the people that make and enforce the law.
Emotionally I dislike your reply. Logically it’s correct. What good is “paying your debt to society” but never being forgiven when you live a better life after punishment.
I don’t need to keep being reminded that Trump supporters are the absolute worst pieces of shit on the planet.
But, we can’t ever forget.
Yeah, I think we all deserve at least a little bit of forgetting every day. We’ve been enduring this bullshit for the better part of a decade. We don’t owe that asshole 100% of our attention all the time. Fuck him. And fuck everyone of his followers, too.
The Nerenberg trials got it right by executing the lot of them. We need more of that after this election cycle. There is no value in keeping them around. It’s not like any of them are launching rockets or anything.
Oh, fuck…
He’s nowhere near as clever as von Braun.
Yeah, I think we all deserve at least a little bit of forgetting every day.
come join me in a state with legal weed
I kind of wouldn’t mind seeing him get 100% of the attention for a little bit of time. I wouldn’t mind hearing him whine as loudly as writtenhouse does about how his life is ruined.
Little dummy must’ve been watching Andrew Tate.
Oh, 100%, society is underestimating the terrible influence Tate, Peterson, and similar grifters are having on men (especially younger men).
Jordan Peterson is really bad because the carnivore diet he promotes would starve the chud’s brain of nutrients.
Peterson is bad because he appeals to lonely blue collar millennial men who, if they had positive male role models or better friends, would have a real chance of being actual decent people.
Tate is bad because he appeals to young men and boys who lack the life experience to know the guy is a loser and a grifter.
My opinion anyway.
The harm I notice Peterson doing is setting back men’s mental health movements. A big barrier I run into working in mental health is not having enough male role models either locally in my area or public personalities online who are willing to discuss things like medication and therapy, but also to discuss the important lifestyle changes that have to be made, particularly in terms of healthy relationships. A big part of men’s mental health needs to be men supporting men instead of competing for women to then use as their sole emotional support. In addition to placing an unfair burden on women, it’s just frankly a burden that can’t and ultimately won’t be carried, leaving men with inadequate support when there’s a better solution to be had. Instead you have peterson (and others, but Peterson has a fancy psych degree to hide his bullshit behind) perpetuating these antiquated ideas that men should be competing with each other. Men deserve better.
You know what there’s no one really doing, or not anyone that young men are following?
Someone telling them they’ll have more prospects if they just make female friends. Not friends that they expect to one day fuck, just friends that are women. So they know how to talk to women and treat them like human beings.
Yea, you’ve nailed it.
I run into troubled young men a lot, unfortunately. I was raised female so I often lack the context to truly empathize with their life experiences, and I’m really hurting for coworkers to consult who can.
They should be watching/listening to Healthy Gamer
Democrats: We can ignore the concerns of young people because they don’t vote.
Also Democrats: Why are young people falling for Republicans’ shit?
These damn DEMOCRATS need to Learn how to Tone Down their Rhetoric!
Did you mean “demoNcrats”? That’s the term the kids are using these days. I swear, the nicknames are the only things remotely clever about trump supporters.
‘Demonrats’ is usually what I hear, and it’s about as far from clever as Albuquerque is from India.
Lawls, yeah, the fact it’s not clever at all is what I was getting at 😂😂 nothing like all the nicknames I’ve heard for Trump:
- Fat Nixon
- Little Donnie two scoops
- Agent orange
- Mango Mussolini
- Napoleon bone spurs
- Orange fuhrer
Etc. these are some of my favorites.
That lady was being terribly divisive with her shirt.
He’s just doing what donnie told him to do.
I went to vote early wearing a bright orange “vote | removes stubborn orange stains” t shirt + a pseudo-MAGA hat saying “Make lying wrong again”. The person I went with to vote thought I would get my ass kicked by someone for wearing it. I’m a 6’4 man and wanted someone to start some shit like this in the courthouse, I’d have them on the floor before security could intervene – and of course nobody did because fascists are also fucking cowards and only punch downwards. What a fuckhead, I hope they try him as an adult.
You were also probably electioneering, which you definitely shouldn’t do, even though I agree with your politics
Actually no, because there isn’t a provision about apparel in my state (Pennsylvania) and is thus not considered electioneering. Signs, banners, literature, all a no-go within ten feet (and the line was so long that, if this was enforced, I’d simply go shirtless and hatless for the last… ten minutes we were there?), but it doesn’t say a damn thing about clothing. But thanks for playing.
Edit: lmao @ all the people downvoting as if I’m wrong when not one person there told me I couldn’t wear what I wore. Not the two cops at the metal detector at the front, not any of the cops inside the building, nor the election worker who we got ballots from. I think if it was illegal, they’d have been the first to ask me to leave (and they didn’t), but clearly you all know the local laws better than… people working in the county courthouse. Yeah, I’ll bet lmao
I once drove too fast near a cop and they didn’t pull me over, therefore speeding is legal. And the law doesn’t define specifically what acts can “cause a disturbance”, so that means you just can’t be arrested for it. Right?
Cops regularly miss violations or just don’t feel it’s worth enforcing them when they may have more important things to do. And laws that don’t define specifics mean the laws can generally be applied broadly, not that they can’t be applied at all. You’re in more danger of running afoul of a law that doesn’t define specific acts it applies to, not less. You may be able to get the case thrown out in court if they consider it too ill-defined, but that’s the sort of thing you pay an expensive lawyer to argue, not a reliable get out of jail free card.
All that said, you’re actually right about apparel not being considered electioneering in Pennsylvania. The reasoning for why you came to that belief is bad, but the end belief is correct. The actual rules from the Secretary of State, both say apparel is electioneering:
Watchers may not engage in electioneering while inside the polling place, which includes wearing apparel or accessories that signify support for a candidate or party.
But that it should not be used to prevent people from voting:
Enforcement of the prohibition on electioneering should not prevent eligible voters from voting. Thus, in the Department’s view, individual voters who appear at the polling place to exercise their right to vote are permitted to wear clothing, buttons or hats that demonstrate their support for particular candidates.
So as long as you’re in the act of voting you’re allowed to wear blatantly political clothing, but if you’re just hanging out by the entrance you’re not.
Did you even look up the actual code?
© No person, when within the polling place, shall electioneer or solicit votes for any political party, political body or candidate, nor shall any written or printed matter be posted up within the said room, except as required by this act.
It makes no particular distinction how electioneering is done. Just none is allowed in any form.
I see you didn’t actually bother to read what I posted. In that link, it says
“21 states prohibit campaign apparel/buttons/stickers/placards” and “Table 2 provides additional information for the 21 states that have statutory restrictions on apparel in the polling place.”
If you scroll down, you will further see that Pennsylvania is not one of those states. The shirt isn’t a poster on a wall. The shirt isn’t soliciting anyone’s vote for any particular candidate. The actual code, as you have so helpfully posted, makes no mention of apparel. It says no person shall solicit people or hang signs, neither of which I did – and the shirt doesn’t count as a person, nor does it count as “posting a sign within the room”. It’s fucking wearing clothing. You could argue that clothing is electioneering all you want, but since the law doesn’t explicitly say wearing clothing is electioneering – where many other states have made the distinction that apparel is or isn’t – I doubt that would hold up in a Pennsylvania court if you had even a slightly competent lawyer, since the law does not codify that wearing clothing is considered electioneering.
You’ll also note that neither the shirt or the hat makes any particular endorsement of any particular candidate, they don’t even specifically name Trump. They do strongly imply I want to be rid of a particular candidate, but it doesn’t tell people to vote for any specific opponent. This also means it fails the “for any political party, political body or candidate” part – they don’t tell anyone to vote for a particular candidate.
It’s okay, I forgive your stupidity.
Dont quit your day job to persue a job in law.
It doesnt need to say it explicitly and its wording is all exclusive.
Or are you going to try and argue a shirt that litterally says “Vote for <canidate>” isnt soliciting because “the law didnt say anything about shirts!”
And for the record i did not say you were electioneering. Merely pointing out clothing can fall into the category of electioneering…
It doesnt need to say it explicitly and its wording is all exclusive.
actually, yes, most laws do have to explicitly lay out what is considered illegal, so that you can be charged with a crime under them. That’s kind of a critical part of lawmaking, painstakingly defining what constitutes breaking the law is what prevents legal loopholes. I really hope your day job isn’t in law, if you don’t know that. In this case, they failed to adequately define what constitutes electioneering.
Or are you going to try and argue a shirt that litterally says "Vote for " isnt soliciting because “the law didnt say anything about shirts!”
I didn’t wear a shirt that says “Vote for” though. I wore a shirt like this and a hat like this. You’d know that if you actually bothered to read what I wrote. They don’t endorse any specific candidate. Nice strawman tho.
Except it very clearly states whats prohibited. It doesnt need to list every possible ways you could solicit because simplely stating “soliciting is prohibited” is clear.
Do you think murder isn’t actually murder because the law didnt specific the method that is required to be considered murder was commited?..
BTW, Its quite ironic your calling someone stupid for lack of reading comprehension. Do continue, lets see how far you’re willing to dig yourself deeper into this rabbit hole.
deleted by creator
