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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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…
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.
He’s nowhere near as clever as von Braun.
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.
deleted by creator
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.
We absolutely should apply the DHS definition to crimes that match that definition. We should also prosecute those who put people’s lives in danger in violent attacks motivated by a desire to suppress free and open elections to the fullest extent of the law.
Otherwise the terrorists win.
on one hand, you’re absolutely right. this was an attack between individuals.
on the other hand, it is their definition. frankly, they won’t hesitate to call us domestic terrorists for protesting against the reduction or complete removal of our civil liberties.
i say let the judge, judge. criminal intent is important in cases like these.
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.
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.
Glad he is charged. What a jackass.
A minor, get his shitty MAGAT parents in the courtroom too.
What an absolute weak turd holy hell.
He’s just doing what donnie told him to do.
I’m going to stand in line to vote tomorrow…should I take my can of Fox 5.3?
deleted by creator
You were also probably electioneering, which you definitely shouldn’t do, even though I agree with your politics
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
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.
deleted by creator
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…
dude lives in PA and you’re going to lecture him on law. 🤣
PA residents are such a pita, legally speaking, that there are entire call centers dedicated to handling support for PA residents.
Say what you will, PA residents know their rights and what laws protect them.
I’ll trust his legal judgement before any armchair lawyer any day.
Yeah and so are sovcits… doesnt make them right.
deleted by creator
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.
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.
just MAGAt shit.
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.
