Maybe? If that's how you want to interpret it. Look, 99% of the responses are outraged that Eli Lake concluded with the shooters not being motivated by DNC or MNSBC "extremist rhetoric" - of course they want to blame "Democrats" and "the media". I first disagree that the vast majority of what is said about Trump in those spaces is "extre…
Maybe? If that's how you want to interpret it. Look, 99% of the responses are outraged that Eli Lake concluded with the shooters not being motivated by DNC or MNSBC "extremist rhetoric" - of course they want to blame "Democrats" and "the media". I first disagree that the vast majority of what is said about Trump in those spaces is "extremist" in the first place, but then second in response to the overwhelming belief within the commentariat this could only have been caused by Democratic "rhetoric", what makes you so sure? Do you think Trump is only filtered to people outside of his base through the Democratic Party and MSNBC? That if the possibility exists that Shooter #2 at least was motivated by a personal animus to Trump that was formed by consuming anti-Trump rhetoric, then it's equally as possible that they were reacting directly to the things Trump says and has done and promises to do - himself. I'm pretty sure someone who is already predisposed to say, support Ukraine's and oppose Putin has a pretty clear vision of where Trump and a Trump Administration would stand on this issue if elected (if we're to understand this issue was at least partially motivating to the shooter) just by listening to Trump and observing his record regarding, they are probably not getting that view provided to them by Democratic campaign talk, Joe Biden, Kamala Harris, etc. They probably *agree* with that more or less consensus view, but they most likely formed it directly as a result of hearing Trump and not Biden or Harris describing Trump's position.
Again, everyone here is behaving as though Trump is not able to be heard and interpreted on his own, and that the very invective sort of rhetoric that Trump regularly engages in could not be as inciteful to violence from those who oppose him as much as it could be inciteful to those who support him, in different ways. If you're blaming "rhetoric", Trump's rhetoric cannot be excluded from it.
Does that mean he should tone it down too, as many want to demand of the Democrats and "media"? That Democrats should basically abandon any sort of negative campaigning on Trump on any aspect of his fitness for Office, maybe just drop out the race and let him win by default, hey why not lol - that seems to be the jist here. Bad things happened to Trump, we blame Democrats, they should basically just let Trump win or we'll continue to blame them if more bad things happen. Well that's not gonna happen :) So Trump is going to continue to Trump, Democrats will continue to prosecute the case against him on mostly the grounds of his fitness for Office, followed by some terrible policies that he has at least partially articulated, and in a nation with access to millions of guns and lots of unstable people and an election season that is going to be very likely contentious and fraught - in big part due to how Trump is already framing any potential loss of his - well, shit's gonna happen regardless, so Trump just better beef his security if he wants to continue to campaign in belligerent and threat mode. But let's not pretend that is not contributing to the kind of environment that produces assassination attempts, even if it gets directed back at him, or at his opponents.
And look - if Harris had an assassination attempt on her by someone who claimed they did it because they got upset about her talking about clamping down on social media disinformation, they view that as a dangerous attack on the First Amendment. They also think that is a backhanded attack on conservative viewpoints. Now they might have been incited by hearing only Republican and Trump and Fox News rhetoric about this policy - where they also disagree with Harris's policy and basically concur with the shooter regarding its implications. Or they may have heard her comments regarding in a campaign speech, debate or wherever and formed that opinion directly. Is Harris "at fault" for inciting the shooter? No, but her statements are out there as being potentially divisive, and yet so are the statements of Republicans and Trump claiming she wants to jail conservatives and end free speech and is a threat to the Constitution. The shooter believes those things too, but maybe as an individual highly motivated around issues of the First Amendment and highly engaged in right wing social media conspiracy theory corners they are very sensitive to that sort of "threat" and also happen to be very unstable and have access to a gun. They probably would have taken the shot even if Trump limited his criticism to this policy of "government overreach" and left out the "threat to the Constitution" and "hates conservatives" stuff. Not the best example but hopefully you can see the distinction. And I certainly don't mean to compare something Harris has said about online disinformation as really belonging in the same category as Trump's regular outbursts about Harris being an "America hating Democrat that will destroy this country" as his general frame of attack against her, which is why it's a poor example - Harris has simply not engaged at the same level of eliminationist sort of rhetoric of which is what makes the Trump situation so unique.
Maybe? If that's how you want to interpret it. Look, 99% of the responses are outraged that Eli Lake concluded with the shooters not being motivated by DNC or MNSBC "extremist rhetoric" - of course they want to blame "Democrats" and "the media". I first disagree that the vast majority of what is said about Trump in those spaces is "extremist" in the first place, but then second in response to the overwhelming belief within the commentariat this could only have been caused by Democratic "rhetoric", what makes you so sure? Do you think Trump is only filtered to people outside of his base through the Democratic Party and MSNBC? That if the possibility exists that Shooter #2 at least was motivated by a personal animus to Trump that was formed by consuming anti-Trump rhetoric, then it's equally as possible that they were reacting directly to the things Trump says and has done and promises to do - himself. I'm pretty sure someone who is already predisposed to say, support Ukraine's and oppose Putin has a pretty clear vision of where Trump and a Trump Administration would stand on this issue if elected (if we're to understand this issue was at least partially motivating to the shooter) just by listening to Trump and observing his record regarding, they are probably not getting that view provided to them by Democratic campaign talk, Joe Biden, Kamala Harris, etc. They probably *agree* with that more or less consensus view, but they most likely formed it directly as a result of hearing Trump and not Biden or Harris describing Trump's position.
Again, everyone here is behaving as though Trump is not able to be heard and interpreted on his own, and that the very invective sort of rhetoric that Trump regularly engages in could not be as inciteful to violence from those who oppose him as much as it could be inciteful to those who support him, in different ways. If you're blaming "rhetoric", Trump's rhetoric cannot be excluded from it.
Does that mean he should tone it down too, as many want to demand of the Democrats and "media"? That Democrats should basically abandon any sort of negative campaigning on Trump on any aspect of his fitness for Office, maybe just drop out the race and let him win by default, hey why not lol - that seems to be the jist here. Bad things happened to Trump, we blame Democrats, they should basically just let Trump win or we'll continue to blame them if more bad things happen. Well that's not gonna happen :) So Trump is going to continue to Trump, Democrats will continue to prosecute the case against him on mostly the grounds of his fitness for Office, followed by some terrible policies that he has at least partially articulated, and in a nation with access to millions of guns and lots of unstable people and an election season that is going to be very likely contentious and fraught - in big part due to how Trump is already framing any potential loss of his - well, shit's gonna happen regardless, so Trump just better beef his security if he wants to continue to campaign in belligerent and threat mode. But let's not pretend that is not contributing to the kind of environment that produces assassination attempts, even if it gets directed back at him, or at his opponents.
And look - if Harris had an assassination attempt on her by someone who claimed they did it because they got upset about her talking about clamping down on social media disinformation, they view that as a dangerous attack on the First Amendment. They also think that is a backhanded attack on conservative viewpoints. Now they might have been incited by hearing only Republican and Trump and Fox News rhetoric about this policy - where they also disagree with Harris's policy and basically concur with the shooter regarding its implications. Or they may have heard her comments regarding in a campaign speech, debate or wherever and formed that opinion directly. Is Harris "at fault" for inciting the shooter? No, but her statements are out there as being potentially divisive, and yet so are the statements of Republicans and Trump claiming she wants to jail conservatives and end free speech and is a threat to the Constitution. The shooter believes those things too, but maybe as an individual highly motivated around issues of the First Amendment and highly engaged in right wing social media conspiracy theory corners they are very sensitive to that sort of "threat" and also happen to be very unstable and have access to a gun. They probably would have taken the shot even if Trump limited his criticism to this policy of "government overreach" and left out the "threat to the Constitution" and "hates conservatives" stuff. Not the best example but hopefully you can see the distinction. And I certainly don't mean to compare something Harris has said about online disinformation as really belonging in the same category as Trump's regular outbursts about Harris being an "America hating Democrat that will destroy this country" as his general frame of attack against her, which is why it's a poor example - Harris has simply not engaged at the same level of eliminationist sort of rhetoric of which is what makes the Trump situation so unique.
So following your line of thinking, the lady who goes out to a bar in the short skirt and low cut top can expect to be raped? Asking for a friend.