JD Vance is using Ryan Wesley Routh as a political weapon and doing it in a fallacious way!

[Independent thinker]

JD Vance is using Ryan Wesley Routh, the man that attempted to kill Trump this week, as a political weapon against Harris and he is doing it in a fallacious way.

What do I mean by using the word "fallacious"? He is cherry picking information and making it public in a way to sway voters into thinking that this assassination attempt was supported by the left.

JD Vance started out his "fallacious" statement by saying this:



and then he followed this up with a comment on X (Twitter):

How do you think the Democrats and their media allies would respond if a 19-time Republican donor tried to kill a Democratic official? It's a question that answers itself. For years, Kamala Harris's campaign surrogates have said things like "Trump has to be eliminated." And how have their media allies responded to the second assassination attempt on Donald Trump in as many months?

With this comment, he is saying that Routh was a Democrat, given that he donated to the Democratic party on 19 different occasions (which is true, Routh did that to the tune of $140).

Nonetheless, this is totally cherry picking information given that in the past it seems that Routh voted for Trump in 2016 (not clear but enough information has been found that seems to suggest that he did.

Here is an article from FOX8 (a subsidiary of FOX News) that gives you the whole story. In this article, it is clearly stated and believed that Routh was simply mentally ill and that he has had these tendencies to violence (and not necessarily political violence) from an early age:

Here is the article:


Bottom line is that the probabilities strongly favor Routh being mentally sick. Nonetheless, JD Vance has used this event as ammunition against the Democrats and he has done it in a fallacious way.

Unfortunately, this seems to be the way the Republicans approach politics.............by swaying people to their side using lies, misinformation, fake truths, and in a scamming way.

Seriously? This guy tries to assassinate Trump and you are making excuses for him?

 

[Concerned American]

Seriously? This guy tries to assassinate Trump and you are making excuses for him?

Scumbags do that.

 

[Luckyone]

Seriously? This guy tries to assassinate Trump and you are making excuses for him?

Where do you read anything I said that would make you come up with that ridiculous idea. Is your mind working correctly?

 

[frigidweirdo]

JD Vance is using Ryan Wesley Routh, the man that attempted to kill Trump this week, as a political weapon against Harris and he is doing it in a fallacious way.

What do I mean by using the word "fallacious"? He is cherry picking information and making it public in a way to sway voters into thinking that this assassination attempt was supported by the left.

JD Vance started out his "fallacious" statement by saying this:



and then he followed this up with a comment on X (Twitter):

How do you think the Democrats and their media allies would respond if a 19-time Republican donor tried to kill a Democratic official? It's a question that answers itself. For years, Kamala Harris's campaign surrogates have said things like "Trump has to be eliminated." And how have their media allies responded to the second assassination attempt on Donald Trump in as many months?

With this comment, he is saying that Routh was a Democrat, given that he donated to the Democratic party on 19 different occasions (which is true, Routh did that to the tune of $140).

Nonetheless, this is totally cherry picking information given that in the past it seems that Routh voted for Trump in 2016 (not clear but enough information has been found that seems to suggest that he did.

Here is an article from FOX8 (a subsidiary of FOX News) that gives you the whole story. In this article, it is clearly stated and believed that Routh was simply mentally ill and that he has had these tendencies to violence (and not necessarily political violence) from an early age:

Here is the article:


Bottom line is that the probabilities strongly favor Routh being mentally sick. Nonetheless, JD Vance has used this event as ammunition against the Democrats and he has done it in a fallacious way.

Unfortunately, this seems to be the way the Republicans approach politics.............by swaying people to their side using lies, misinformation, fake truths, and in a scamming way.

This has been happening from day one. It's amazing how if something bad happens, IT MUST BE FROM THE LEFT.

This basically sums up how they operate. Bad things = left, good things = right.

Look at the Afghan pull out, they don't talk about it much, but they claim all the bad stuff was Biden, even though Trump released FIVE THOUSAND Taliban... and then they wonder why it went wrong....

 

[frigidweirdo]

But not once do you condemn political violence.

Or we condemn political violence, but if we don't do it EVERY SINGLE POST then you'll claim we never did it.

 

[Hum Dinger]

But not once do you condemn political violence.

When people are a clear and present danger to the country, they are traitors. They are a threat to the nation. Killing them is not 'political violence'. It is a matter of national security.

'Political Violence' is when violence is committed against law abiding political people - not traitors and not those who try to overthrow our Democracy.

If George Washington were alive, Trump would have been hung by Jan. 7, 2021.

 

[Wild Bill Kelsoe]

When people are a clear and present danger to the country, they are traitors. They are a threat to the nation. Killing them is not 'political violence'. It is a matter of national security.

'Political Violence' is when violence is committed against law abiding political people - not traitors and not those who try to overthrow our Democracy.

If George Washington were alive, Trump would have been hung by Jan. 7, 2021.

That's some nut job shit right there...lol

I predict you'll be in the news in RL one day.

 

[Luckyone]

When people are a clear and present danger to the country, they are traitors. They are a threat to the nation. Killing them is not 'political violence'. It is a matter of national security.

'Political Violence' is when violence is committed against law abiding political people - not traitors and not those who try to overthrow our Democracy.

If George Washington were alive, Trump would have been hung by Jan. 7, 2021.

Clear and present danger? According to whom?

If your statement about killing someone because they are traitors and a threat to the nation (according to you), does that mean I have the same right to kill those I consider to be traitors (according to me)?

This is why we have a legal system in place (not anarchy where the strongest wins). Using the legal system, Trump has been convicted of a felony, so he is a "clear and present danger" and should be killed?

Oh and by the way, for the past 50 years, more Republicans have been put in jail than Democrats, meaning that they are more of a clear and present danger than the Democrats. Using your way of thinking, should we kill Republicans when we see them?

 

[Hum Dinger]

Clear and present danger? According to whom?

If your statement about killing someone because they are traitors and a threat to the nation (according to you), does that mean I have the same right to kill those I consider to be traitors (according to me)?

This is why we have a legal system in place (not anarchy where the strongest wins). Using the legal system, Trump has been convicted of a felony, so he is a "clear and present danger" and should be killed?

Oh and by the way, for the past 50 years, more Republicans have been put in jail than Democrats, meaning that they are more of a clear and present danger than the Democrats. Using your way of thinking, should we kill Republicans when we see them?

View attachment 1017905

First, it's the President that determines if a person is considered a 'Clear and present danger', not me or you, dumbass.

Second, the recent SCOTUS decision has made that very, very clear.

 

[Luckyone]

First, it's the President that determines if a person is considered a 'Clear and present danger', not me or you, dumbass.

Second, the recent SCOTUS decision has made that very, very clear.

What decision has the SCOTUS made recently that has made "what" very very clear. The SCOTUS decision was about decisions made while president cannot be prosecuted in a court of law but they said nothing about decisions made when no longer being president. Murphy dropped the charges made against Trump while in office but he did put the ones made out of office back in and those do show that Trump is a 'clear and present danger". As such and according to your way of thinking and statement and definition, Trump is a traitor as he tried to OVERTURN the election over and over gain "after no longer being in office".

As such, you are the dumbass in this situation.

Going one step further WITH YOUR STATEMENT about ONLY THE PRESIDENT can decide who is a "clear and present danger" let me remind you that Biden is president right now and he has stated

Biden blasts Trump as a ‘despicable’ danger to democracy​

so according to YOUR statement of "They are a threat to the nation. Killing them is not 'political violence'. It is a matter of national security".

I guess it is fine to kill Trump because it is NOT "political violence" but a matter of national security.

As such, those two attempts on his life should be applauded (not prosecuted) as it is not political violence but a threat to our national security, right?

Your words (not mine)

 

[Hum Dinger]

What decision has the SCOTUS made recently that has made "what" very very clear. The SCOTUS decision was about decisions made while president cannot be prosecuted in a court of law but they said nothing about decisions made when no longer being president. Murphy dropped the charges made against Trump while in office but he did put the ones made out of office back in and those do show that Trump is a 'clear and present danger". As such and according to your way of thinking and statement and definition, Trump is a traitor as he tried to OVERTURN the election over and over gain "after no longer being in office".

As such, you are the dumbass in this situation.

Going one step further WITH YOUR STATEMENT about ONLY THE PRESIDENT can decide who is a "clear and present danger" let me remind you that Biden is president right now and he has stated

Biden blasts Trump as a ‘despicable’ danger to democracy​

so according to YOUR statement of "They are a threat to the nation. Killing them is not 'political violence'. It is a matter of national security".

I guess it is fine to kill Trump because it is NOT "political violence" but a matter of national security.

As such, those two attempts on his life should be applauded (not prosecuted) as it is not political violence but a threat to our national security, right?

Your words (not mine)

I admire your ability to toss the bullshit!

The recent SCOTUS decision protects Presidents from being prosecuted for their actions while in office, but only those actions that official Presidential acts, not personal or political.

Trump is still being prosecuted for his attempt to overthrow Democracy, while he was still in office, because those were political not Presidential acts.

Jack Smith only removed the charges that pertained to 'grey' areas of whether the act was Presidential or political. Otherwise, the case is moving forward.

It is up to President Biden's discretion as to whether he should send 'Seal Team 6' to deal with Trump. I believe that he would have just cause.

However, since it's obvious that Trump is going to lose this election, I'm sure that Biden has chosen to wait until after the election and let the Justice system deal with Trump.