Anyone see whats happening in Nepal?

Honest question -- when was there a politically non-violent time? I'm hard pressed to think of a decade without a notable political killing.

I think you are misunderstanding my point. I am concerned about the increasing frequency of such events more than anything else, because, to your point, why things did happen in decades prior, it was not nearly as common.

Gabby Giffords's shooting was tragic. But thankfully it was an isolated incident.

In the past year-or-so we have seen two assassination attempts on Donald Trump, the assassination of the CEO of an insurance company, the assassination of Rep. Hortman, and now this. That's five political assassinations/attempts in a year.

It would seem fair to argue we are now firmly in a state of contagion which is unlike the situation in 2012 when Giffords was shot.

Some others from this year:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2025_Capital_Jewish_Museum_sho...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2025_Boulder_fire_attack

Additionally, I’ve seen a troubling amount of online sentiment positively in favor of the Trump assassination attempts, the murder of Brian Thompson. The sentiment in response to Charlie Kirk’s murder looks like it might be similarly troubling.

The rhetoric on Paul Pelosi's hammer attack was unhinged - it also was political violence. I don't doubt the same figures who made lurid comments, mocked or ridiculed the attack will now act more measured and asking for decorum due to the victims "team".

January 6 was mass political violence, and I my unprofessional opinion is that the pardons marked a turning point in how engaging in political violence is viewed; all is forgiven if/when your team wins.

Hyper-partisanship, and choosing not playing by the rules when it benefits you will be America's downfall. At some point, people on the other side if the political fence stopped being opponents, and became "enemies", I think cable news/entertainment shoulders much blame on this, but the politicians themselves know outrage turns out the vote. I wonder if they'll attempt to lower the temperature or raise it further.

I agree that the Pelosi attack was political violence and the rhetoric was unhinged, and I agree that January 6 was mass political violence. I didn’t include them (or some others that came to mind) since I was keeping it to the parent post’s “past year-or-so.” But they serve just as well at making the point, that louder and louder subsets of society are claiming these attacks are actually good, which is a disturbing societal shift. I remember when Gifford was shot; the discourse was all about assigning blame for the bad thing, as opposed to saying it was a good thing. Feels like we’re moving in a bad direction, as your examples and my examples both illustrate.

> But they serve just as well at making the point, that louder and louder subsets of society are claiming these attacks are actually good, which is a disturbing societal shift.

There has been widespread discontent for a while now - it's the vein Obama and Trump tapped to win their respective first terms. AFAICT, it is an evolving class war[1], with American characteristics.

1. One could argue which side tore up the social contract first, and quibble with the definition of what counts as "violence"

See also: Israel’s numerous assassinations globally that are supported by the US.

It was political violence when Trump was shot on stage too.

I imagine that a lot of the political thuggarry we're seeing today is a direct result of him coming within an inch of having his brains blown out. No one comes that close to death without being fundamentally changed.

> I imagine that a lot of the political thuggarry we're seeing today is a direct result of him coming within an inch of having his brains blown out. No one comes that close to death without being fundamentally changed.

I haven't noticed a fundamental change.

If you haven't noticed a difference between his first and second terms may I suggest you go for a vacation outside the US and try coming back in? For bonus points make a mistake on your forms.

US customs are now _worse_ than they were a month after 9/11 and this time it's not just the ones at airports.

I know plenty of people who will be giving NeurIPS a miss _on the advice of their governments_. This _did not_ happen during his first term.

> US customs are now _worse_ than they were a month after 9/11

You mean that time when millions of American citizens were placed on the No Fly List with no recourse essentially at random? You can't be serious. After 9/11 was far worse.

I've been in and out of the US several times this year through several ports of entry and it has been hassle-free so far. They don't even ask me questions, they just wave me through.

> This _did not_ happen during his first term.

He and his enablers played that argument during his 2024 campaign as well, but everyone is missing a crucial aspect of it. During his first term, he was surrounded by a large number of career administration staff, who put guardrails around him. This time it's all 'Yes men' and his well-wishers. Notably, no one from the previous admin staff had endorsed him for 2024. That should have given a clue to people. But, nope.

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/former-trump-officials...

> US customs are now _worse_ than they were a month after 9/11 and this time it's not just the ones at airports

Apologies, but "citation needed"?

(As a non-US citizen) I flew into JFK earlier this year and did my (first) Global Entry interview. It was the shortest and most polite immigration interview I've ever had anywhere, and I've had a few.

To be fair global entry is the greased skids of US customs. It's meant to be more efficient.

Yes, I was referring to Trump, not the state of the country. Republicans have full control this time around, but the goals and rhetoric have not changed. Trump was not "radicalized."

The differences we’re seeing were all planned years in advance. This time around Trump had the time and experience to build his own team instead of taking the team the Republican establishment handed him. As for policies, it’s all in Agenda 47, his manifesto, including universal and reciprocal tariffs, ending birthright citizenship, immigration crackdowns, he laid out exactly what he was going to do back in 2023.

The country may have fundamentally changed, but I suspect that comment was about Trump. Everyone knew they were planning to destroy the place if he got a second term, they wrote a book explaining it.

Has nothing to do with trump being shot as project2025 has been planned for many years.

Oh come on, he was talking about 'I am your justice...I am your retribution' back in 2023. https://www.c-span.org/clip/campaign-2024/former-pres-trump-...

His entire schtick, since the day he announced his campaign in 2015, has been based around grievance politics.

If you say it is political violence, I feel it is important to note, it was by a recently registered Republican.

Heh. You know. I don't want to be too flippant, but I will respond to this, because it raises an interesting point.

I would like to hope that you recognize that registration of political affiliation is just one data point. Spring it does not make. You know how I got registered as a republican? I got incorrectly registered as one during judge election volunteering.

I am not saying it means nothing. What I am saying is: some nuance is helpful in conversations like this.

PA has closed primaries though, so he likely would have fixed it if it was a mistake. In any case, if you're looking for nuance, there's not a lot of it in political violence in the US.

Ruby Ridge, Waco, Timothy McVeigh, Jim Adkisson, Dylan Roof, the Tree of Life shooting, J6, the 2022 Buffalo shooter, Jacksonville 2023, Allen, TX 2023, etc.

Nearly all political violence in the US is committed by people espousing right wing ideology, so if it walks and talks like a duck, is telling you it's a duck...

The moment trump was shot (or whatever ricocheted and hit his face) and the picture was taken of him with the flag, I knew he had the election won. There was just no way for an opponent to top that photo op.

Crookes basically handed the election to Trump.

> There was just no way for an opponent to top that photo op.

Rising up with your fist clenched right after you were shot isn't something you train for either. That's a natural reaction from instinct.

It's morbid curiosity to analyze it, but I don't think it would have had the same net effect if it was Harris.

Trump has spent decades in practical training to be media savvy.

There's no way Trump has the chutzpah to intentionally get shot and hit, no matter how many guarantees he has that it won't be fatal or long-term damaging.

“Photo op”.

A man was killed that day.

I don't give a single fuck about the wellbeing of Crookes, which might be immoral, but I can tell you from the perspective of usefulness of the photo op, it doesn't appear your concern reached a position of influence.

I'm referring to the man sitting behind Trump who was killed in front of his wife and kid you abject fool.

How does that make it not a photo op? And why the hell didn't you just say who you were referring to since multiple died, rather than just saying ' a man' and then degrading yourself to name calling when I took a wrong guess at who you were referring to?

Please touch grass. I didnt pick for the guy to die, nor did I want this iconic photo op. I don't understand your beef with me and your little guessing game name-calling trap but I hope your day gets better.

Why are you reading and commenting on a purely political topic? I thought you were tired of it?

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45041957

He didn't seem fundamentally changed though. In fact he used it as a political prop.