zlacker

>>david9+(OP)
There are a number of outspoken people on the other end of the political spectrum from me, that I vehemently disagree with. While I would love to see their words either ignored or condemned by the masses; I have no desire to see them killed or harmed in any way.

I wish more people on both ends of the political spectrum felt that way. Either committing or supporting violence against those we disagree with, has no place in a civil society.

>>didget+ya1
> I wish more people on both ends of the political spectrum felt that way.

Agreed. Sadly the leader of one side openly and repeatedly calls for violence against anyone who disrupts his speeches [0]. The former leader of the other side condemns political violence and even calls his opponent after an attack out of concern for his welfare. [1]

[0] https://time.com/4203094/donald-trump-hecklers/

[1] https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/article/2024/jul/14/bide...

>>paulry+Hi2
This is a really disingenuous and biased selection of sources. One could find systemic examples of inflammatory rethoric from almost anyone in US politics: Biden, Obama, Trump, Waltz, Harris, DeSantis, Newsome, etc.

Ironically, assassinated Charlie Kirk was one of the most reserved US public figures in this regard.

>>Andrew+Un3
you can find inflammatory rhetoric from any human being ever, that is obviously true, but it’s also disingenuous to act like trump is not the most inflammatory and devisive leader America has had in modern history. Look at how he responded to the murders of the Hortmans in Minnesota relative to how Biden responded to his assassination attempt or how most (if not all) democratic lawmakers are responding to this

And while political violence is abhorrent Kirk was no angel. In the aftermath of this his views on gun violence have been echoed widely but he is a man that called for political opponents (namely Joe Biden) to face the death penalty [0]. That page outlines much more. So are his calls for political violence including the death of his opponents, inflammatory language like slurs[0], encouraging violence against immigrants and transgender athletes[0] “reserved”? I would hate to see what you consider out of line then

[0] https://www.mediamatters.org/charlie-kirk/charlie-kirk-has-h...

>>hellot+wu3
> it’s also disingenuous to act like trump is not the most inflammatory and devisive leader America has had in modern history.

I'm not from the US, and do not have a horse in this fight, but I'm pretty sure that there are a lot of people in the US who believe that the most inflammatory and divisive leader America had in modern history was Obama. The main difference between Trump and Obama is that Trump is teared apart by the media, while Obama was cuddled by it.

(btw, speaking from my non-US experience, when a leader is cuddled by the press, it is a bad sign, not a good one)

>>Andrew+iE5
>I'm pretty sure that there are a lot of people in the US who believe that the most inflammatory and divisive leader America had in modern history was Obama.

You want to know why a lot of those people, who are reactionary by nature, thought Obama was so divisive?

It's because they couldn't stomach being led by someone who wasn't white.

>The main difference between Trump and Obama is that Trump is teared apart by the media, while Obama was cuddled by it.

You'll notice that Obama was roundly (and rightfully) criticized by the left for his actual policies, and was criticized by the right for his skin color. For those who focus on policy ramifications, Obama was repeatedly critiqued. The problem is the right wing media machine couldn't outright drop a hard -er or call him "boy", so they had to use emotional cues to insult him personally. Forget about actual policy, especially because his signature policy, the Affordable Care Act, was copied verbatim from enacted GOP legislation.