Was Jo Cox probably the least deserving of her fate?

Post Reply New Topic

She at least tried to help people in the wider world, whereas her colleagues have been actively enjoying themselves in the destruction of the disabled in their own country (could be said... IDS was to blame, but what he stated after resigning was at least correct) and while prime ministers screw over everyone and f**k pigs throughout decades in one year she at least co-chaired an inclusive committee...

You haven't had much answer yet because the pain of its recentness and wording.


She didn't "deserve" to be murdered no matter politics, cheeky comments on twitter dissin the flotilla (which was full of people in pain and angry at their loss of living-fish. Not a finest moment), patriotism or wholesomeness. There seem many more politicians with less credential and good intentions.

But neither does the crak ho in the run down burough "deserve" to be murdered. Or many others, usually women who are often killed by predators or by those they once trusted.


No one.... NO ONE deserves to be murdered. So by that token, there is no deserves less/deserves more
If guilty of something they need to be brought to justice. But hopefully after proven guilt.

No, people don't generally deserve anything, but some politicians actually destroy many people's lives, not just one. Those who themselves advocate violence too - surely Trump would be a prime candidate if ever elected (and in comparison deserves it way more than JFK or Lincoln).

The least deserving probably isn't a politician in the first place.

Also how does Trump advocate violence? Nonsense, if that's what the BBC is telling you then they're lying to you like usual.

Beat me to it, they're like lawyers in that way.

Lawyers are tools that simply implement whatever politicians come up with, and any legal precedent, what is corrupt is the system. Trump may not be a politician right now but if one person, regardless of ridiculous wealth, states that an entire nation is full of rapists... is that not a violence conclusion? Mexico may already have a problem with violence in itself, but getting an equally combustible representative will surely not help anything. If you take out faces and voices I am not sure there is much difference between Pablo Escobar and Trump, really.

that is a misrepresentation of what Trump said

he was illustrating a point about illegal immigration from Mexico who along with everybody else in Latin America and the Caribbean deliberately send their 'undesirable' populations illegally to the US. Mexico puts them on trains in southern Mexico facilitates their travel to the US border, Mexico I should remind you is one of the most racist and unequal countries in the world. It's a straight up joke that the Mexican nationalists which is what they are, not a race, try to play the victim and blame the US for all their problems. These Mexican nationalists believe that the entire southwestern United States truly belongs to Mexico, limiting immigration from such hostile irredentist populations is what you have to do to survive as a nation. If this is not the case then Canada should erase it's border and let the 330 million Americans have freedom of movement too, I mean there wouldn't be a Canada anymore but nobody could accuse you of being racist? Maybe Justin Trudeau can airlift the illegals up to Canada for those guys, he seems into it.

We do not vet the illegals that come into this country, a lot of them are in fact criminals some murders and rapists. That's not saying all Mexicans are murders and rapists, repeating that as if it is a truth is the most dishonest thing you can do and the media is the worst at it. These criminal drug cartels have literal armies at their disposal, they go back between the border like it is nothing.

Trump did this to distinguish himself from the presumed frontrunner when he entered the race Jeb Bush who called illegal immigration 'an act of love'.