If we were talking about random voters on both sides of the political spectrum, I'd agreed with you. But we're talking about institutions and elites whose positions of power and whose professed "neutrality" allow them to amplify their political rhetoric and seemingly justifying political violence, which is then followed by their lack of shame in what they are doing. Obviously sticking to the playbook. I'm sorry. These are people who don't really care what they break as long as they get what the result that they want.
This reminds me of our government calling on Israel to “tone it down” while Hezbullah continuously drops bombs on Israel and Hamas keeps innocent civilians captive after having raped and murder over 1,200 in cold blood on October 7, 2024. I understand about taking the higher ground, but only if all sides are held to the same standard.
I was reliably told by Democrats for the past 4 years that Trump’s words on Jan. 6 caused or incited violence. Yet now they argue their words have no effect at all on the rise in violence in the last 2 months. Seems as though only one candidate has had multiple attempts on his life.
It is kind of the author to note that Trump is “understandably angry” about two attempts on his life in as many months. He then goes on to criticize Trump’s reaction. I have not seen the media criticizing the tsunami of hatred spewed toward Trump, by the likes of prosecutor Letiticia James who was actually out on the street on multiple occasions blasting him with a bullhorn, and the endless parade of democratic harpies daily ramping up the rhetoric. Why no article about that? It is obvious brain trusts like Joy Behar and Morning Joe have done nothing but savage Trump’s every move for years. Yet the article, of course, focuses on the need for Trump to tone it down. Very lopsided and biased.
It's worth noting there is now actual data to support the argument that sufficiently extreme exaggerations have violent consequences. A new Rasmussen poll is out saying 28% of Democrats (and 17% of the entire sample, plus another 14% who weren't sure) think the country would have been better off if Trump had been killed. If that doesn't horrify you, regardless of how you vote, I don't know what to say. This is beyond out of hand. A plurality of the sample (45%) thinks anti-Trump rhetoric was responsible.
Sorry Eli, I respectfully disagree. Two things can be true at the same time. For example, it is true that we, as a society, have agreed that criminal guilt must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt because we believe it is better that some guilty people go unpunished than for one innocent person to be punished. At the same time it can be true that an accused person who is found not guilty may have actually committed the crime. With respect to free speech, It can be true that we, as a society, have agreed to draw the line, to use an example from the Supreme Court, at yelling fire in a crowded theater. Therefore, remarking, "Wouldn't it be would be really cool if someone yelled fire in this crowded theater" is tolerated free speech, but actually falsely yelling fire in the crowded theater is not. Similarly, as Eli posits, calling someone a Nazi or an existential threat can be protected free speech, while trying to kill that person is not, and it is the attempted killer who is legally responsible for their illegal act not the prior speaker who exercised their right of free speech. At the same time it can also be true that there can be a causal link between what one person says while exercising their right of free speech and someone else taking illegal action based on what the other person said. Thus, it can be true that numerous, prominent influencers frequently and repeatedly, over a span of years, calling President Trump a Nazi and an existential threat can have radicalizes listeners to those messages into believing they need to act illegally to neutralize that alleged threat. While we may have agreed, in the name of free speech, not to invoke the the power of government to prohibit such speech (or using ugly or coarse language or burning the American flag, etc.), it remains the right of all private citizens to exercise their rights of free speech to express their belief in the existence of a causal link between inappropriate or dangerous protected free speech and illegal actions of others, and to condemn such a speech and to stigmatize and shun those who engage in it. Thus, if you happen to be sitting in a crowded theater and the person next to you says, "Wouldn't it be cool if someone yelled fire," it is perfectly acceptable for you to respond, "No it would not, and you should be ashamed of yourself for even thinking such a thought, and do not ever let me hear you express such a dangerous and stupid thought ever again." In fact, I respectfully suggest that if we do not, as private citizens, exercise our right of free speech to call out and condemn those who engage in inappropriate or dangerous protected free speech, then we only hasten the erosion our precious right of free speech. Strongly believing that, although we may disagree with what someone says, we must defend their right to say it does not mean that we should muzzle ourselves from expressing our disagreement. Further, I suggest, the more inappropriate and dangerous what they said is, the greater our obligation to express our disagreement and condemn what they said. It is disingenuous in the extreme that the same people who repeatedly call President Trump a Nazi and existential threat disavow any responsibility for the two assassination attempts (so far), yet at the same time call for President Trump to be prosecuted for the actions of others on January 6, 2001.
This is what Nancy Pelosi said about Trump just before the Butler assassination attempt. "This is not a normal election where you want to win and if you don't, you cooperate and do the best you can for the country and hope to win the next time. This is something that is undermining our democracy. He must be stopped. He cannot be president." (quoted in RealClearPolitics 07/02/2024). This is not the same as saying your opponent’s policies would be bad for the country, that he is “gonna put y’all back in chains,” that he is Putin’s puppet, that his personality is disagreeable. Extreme rhetoric is baked into the First Amendment and is a normal part of our political process. Pelosi’s statement is different in that she explicitly rejects the normal democratic process, ostensibly to protect democracy itself, a stance which logically predicates some kind of extraordinary intervention. As I see it, this kind of rhetoric is only coming from one side.
Eli is absolutely correct. The trap is sprung and you can now see the end game for first amendment principles. The fruit was too low for too long. It’s much easier to lazily claim words are violence than to have discourse about the benefits of your own ideas. Not click baity enough. The legal definition of incite used to be a word of art in the context of free speech. Apparently now everything “incites”.
I see clips of political debates from the 80’s and 90’s and wonder what happened in the interim. We’ve lost our ability to be civil, witty and funny while making serious political points. It’s now devolved into existential threats to drive voter turnout. I’m hoping the last 10-20 years is simply a test period we’ll look back upon with wonder. Somewhere the algorithms decided you only have to call the other side names and there’s no requirement to talk with the public to prove your ideas are better for the country. Better yet, we need to stop others from publicly challenging our ideas.
The authoritarians unfortunately have coaxed us to the edge of this slippery slope. One day soon me publicly chastising govt policy will be determined by the govt, the sole authority to determine that which is true or civil, to be seditious or hate speech worthy of jail time. You may say that’s hyperbole. Just wait.
It’s happening in Spain. Today. Big brother is here and his name is Pedro Sanchez and his socialist/communist coalition government which will now forever remain in power.
I wanted to like this article's conclusion, but the trip there was full of potholes ; p Democrats call Trump a "threat to democracy" because of his conduct around the 2020 election and Jan 6, period, which has continued to infect the GOP since, with a large percentage of Republican officeholders at least cynically playing along with "stolen election" rhetoric as a vehicle to attempt to disenfranchise large numbers of voters (presumed to be voting Democratic) and to give powers to county elections boards run by True Believers to toss out results without any standards of proof of fraud, or to otherwise gum up the works to create chaos and doubt around results that will be close and determinative. You can agree or disagree that "stolen election" is a Big Lie, but you can't disagree that this is the viewpoint of the vast majority of Democrats and their voters. It's entirely rationale, therefore, for Democrats to clearly state that Trump is a threat to democracy on that basis and oppose him on that basis, and not "extreme rhetoric" that just demonizes Trump because they dislike his "policies" (he needs to have some to dislike).
On the other hand, Trump and his supporters regularly state that Democratic leaders, any Trump opposition (including Republicans and former Republicans), the entire media that is not explicitly right wing friendly, all institutions coded as "left", and by extension the 50% or so of Democratic voters are "evil", "enemies within", "destroying the country", "hate America", "hate YOU (Trump supporters)", "if I (Trump) don't win you won't have a country anymore", are "communists", "Marxists", "pedophiles", they will "steal your sacred elections (if there's any result that Trump doesn't win)", and I'm probably just reciting the top phrases from Trump's Truth Social posts in the last 24 hours. His rallies are filled with the same rhetoric, and it's these lines that really get the crowd going and cheering, Harris was right, however that they get bored when he goes on 10 minute long discursive rambles about sharks, electric boats and Hannibal Lecter - but talk about "locking up" various Democrats (which started back in 2016 with of course "Lock Her Up" led chants about HRC) and taking "revenge" on "his" enemies (which are of course "yours" too!) and all the supposed "predations" of the left gets the crowds going.
Has anyone considered that the recent shooter (the first one I believe was shown not to have an anti-Trump fixation at all but just wanted to go out on a Big Historical Note of assassinating an Important Person, who was equally open to shooting Biden or Trump, and Trump “won” just because he happened to holding an even in the area) was motivated not by Democratic “rhetoric” about Trump, but about Trump’s own words? How is it not as likely that Trump calling an entire political party and its voters and associating it with every cultural trend they dislike “evil” and “destroying America” is not inciting folks against him directly? I don’t need to watch “MSNBC” or hear Trump’s words sane-washed by NY times or have Kamala Harris tell me what he is saying is bad - anyone can hear it straight from Trump himself, so I’m surprised there’s not even a tiny bit of introspection here that Trump may be the one inciting the crazies himself - both the ones for him as well as the ones against him.
Blaming the "victim"? Maybe, or just calling it like I see it. You can't really believe that anyone who is upset about Trump's rhetoric is only upset because Democrats are telling them Trump's a bad guy, that they can't see, read and hear Trump's rhetoric themselves, and ask yourself if there's any reason whatsoever for a certain type of mindset to find any of that threatening on its own, regardless of what Democrats do or do not say about it. Trump has made his entire political career about being deliberately polarizing, belligerent and over the top rhetorically. His supporters have reveled in this. Unfortunately that comes with risk in a nation awash in high powered guns easily accessible by pretty much anyone including very unstable and dangerous individuals - blaming "the Democrats" for people reacting to stuff they can see and hear plainly coming from him, if at that is the case, is not going to alter the risk - even if Harris only talks about Trump's ridiculous tariff "policy" Trump's still out there talking about the "enemies" he wants to punish if he gets back into power, and of course the 2020 election fallout of Trump's "Stolen Election" lies and Jan 6 is hardly that far back in the rearview for anyone to put that together and conclude for themselves that "Trump is a threat to democracy". I'm not justifying attempts on his life btw, the only way to beat him is once again at the ballot box and this time be ready for the tantruming, at least he won't be running the federal government for over 2 months after the fact - but if we're looking around for reasons as to why someone with access to guns and planning would want to take out Trump because of "rhetoric", consider what the "rhetoric" might be and where it's coming from that they're responding to.
Or…people’s political expressions shouldn’t be cause for violence and we should stop rationalizing criminal behavior because it’s committed against the other side.
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.
Of the stew of ingredients that produced the Summer 2020 riots, yes Donald Trump was *one* of the many matches tossed into the fire, at least in part due to his failure at leadership and crisis management - and the long simmering cracks he helped widen in differences and relations, particularly racial. Sorry for the mixed metaphor though!
If it makes you feel better, I do hold local and state officials accountable as well that allowed disorder to continue for far too long, and minimized their responsibility for public safety and order.
I remember "mostly peaceful protests", students in London screaming to police "Don't shoot" (in London!), red vaginas. Of course, Trump ignited them. He was elected by Putin, who also created Cambridge Analytica and Brexit.
You know what's most interesting. Progressives never admit their own mistakes. Never! On the contrary, the more stupid mistake they make, the more efforts they make to go in the wrong direction, following Hegel's maxim "if facts contradict theory, then so much the worse for the facts."
NetZero to 2030 is a classical example of this arrogance of educated idiots.
There's a big difference between blaming speech and banning it. Blaming speech is itself speech! As long as it's a citizen asking others to tone it down, let's stay out of the way. If the government is trying to make them tone it down, then we have work to do.
Have to disagree with Eli on this one. The man who tried to shoot Trump in Florida was on a "Hero's Journey." That's why he went to Ukraine. To be a hero, both to himself and the world. And what better way to be a hero -- to the media, the Left, the elite -- than to shoot today's Hitler. There are many more such people at loose, and they will be watching for their curtain call.
The left says "silence is violence," questioning their dogma is violence, asking questions is violence, Trump is Hitler and the end of democracy, etc etc while condoning actual violence as "protest." I am a free speech absolutist but you cannot reasonably equate what the two sides here are doing. It is not the same.
Bookended as it was by Secret Service ineptitude and FBI secrecy, Butler unfortunately bears the taint of potential involvement more than rhetorical inspiration. But saying that would just motivate more pointless squabbling like cats and dogs.
Apologies for this tangent:
It amuses me to no end when English majors use words like "stochastic."
Was "random" just too pedestrian in this context?
If we were talking about random voters on both sides of the political spectrum, I'd agreed with you. But we're talking about institutions and elites whose positions of power and whose professed "neutrality" allow them to amplify their political rhetoric and seemingly justifying political violence, which is then followed by their lack of shame in what they are doing. Obviously sticking to the playbook. I'm sorry. These are people who don't really care what they break as long as they get what the result that they want.
This reminds me of our government calling on Israel to “tone it down” while Hezbullah continuously drops bombs on Israel and Hamas keeps innocent civilians captive after having raped and murder over 1,200 in cold blood on October 7, 2024. I understand about taking the higher ground, but only if all sides are held to the same standard.
I was reliably told by Democrats for the past 4 years that Trump’s words on Jan. 6 caused or incited violence. Yet now they argue their words have no effect at all on the rise in violence in the last 2 months. Seems as though only one candidate has had multiple attempts on his life.
It is kind of the author to note that Trump is “understandably angry” about two attempts on his life in as many months. He then goes on to criticize Trump’s reaction. I have not seen the media criticizing the tsunami of hatred spewed toward Trump, by the likes of prosecutor Letiticia James who was actually out on the street on multiple occasions blasting him with a bullhorn, and the endless parade of democratic harpies daily ramping up the rhetoric. Why no article about that? It is obvious brain trusts like Joy Behar and Morning Joe have done nothing but savage Trump’s every move for years. Yet the article, of course, focuses on the need for Trump to tone it down. Very lopsided and biased.
Surely the purpose of the horrendous photo that accompanies this piece is to solicit
yet more hate toward Trump.
Have to agree. How about a nice scowling shot of one of the Joys—Reid or Behar. Easy to come by.
It's worth noting there is now actual data to support the argument that sufficiently extreme exaggerations have violent consequences. A new Rasmussen poll is out saying 28% of Democrats (and 17% of the entire sample, plus another 14% who weren't sure) think the country would have been better off if Trump had been killed. If that doesn't horrify you, regardless of how you vote, I don't know what to say. This is beyond out of hand. A plurality of the sample (45%) thinks anti-Trump rhetoric was responsible.
Sorry Eli, I respectfully disagree. Two things can be true at the same time. For example, it is true that we, as a society, have agreed that criminal guilt must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt because we believe it is better that some guilty people go unpunished than for one innocent person to be punished. At the same time it can be true that an accused person who is found not guilty may have actually committed the crime. With respect to free speech, It can be true that we, as a society, have agreed to draw the line, to use an example from the Supreme Court, at yelling fire in a crowded theater. Therefore, remarking, "Wouldn't it be would be really cool if someone yelled fire in this crowded theater" is tolerated free speech, but actually falsely yelling fire in the crowded theater is not. Similarly, as Eli posits, calling someone a Nazi or an existential threat can be protected free speech, while trying to kill that person is not, and it is the attempted killer who is legally responsible for their illegal act not the prior speaker who exercised their right of free speech. At the same time it can also be true that there can be a causal link between what one person says while exercising their right of free speech and someone else taking illegal action based on what the other person said. Thus, it can be true that numerous, prominent influencers frequently and repeatedly, over a span of years, calling President Trump a Nazi and an existential threat can have radicalizes listeners to those messages into believing they need to act illegally to neutralize that alleged threat. While we may have agreed, in the name of free speech, not to invoke the the power of government to prohibit such speech (or using ugly or coarse language or burning the American flag, etc.), it remains the right of all private citizens to exercise their rights of free speech to express their belief in the existence of a causal link between inappropriate or dangerous protected free speech and illegal actions of others, and to condemn such a speech and to stigmatize and shun those who engage in it. Thus, if you happen to be sitting in a crowded theater and the person next to you says, "Wouldn't it be cool if someone yelled fire," it is perfectly acceptable for you to respond, "No it would not, and you should be ashamed of yourself for even thinking such a thought, and do not ever let me hear you express such a dangerous and stupid thought ever again." In fact, I respectfully suggest that if we do not, as private citizens, exercise our right of free speech to call out and condemn those who engage in inappropriate or dangerous protected free speech, then we only hasten the erosion our precious right of free speech. Strongly believing that, although we may disagree with what someone says, we must defend their right to say it does not mean that we should muzzle ourselves from expressing our disagreement. Further, I suggest, the more inappropriate and dangerous what they said is, the greater our obligation to express our disagreement and condemn what they said. It is disingenuous in the extreme that the same people who repeatedly call President Trump a Nazi and existential threat disavow any responsibility for the two assassination attempts (so far), yet at the same time call for President Trump to be prosecuted for the actions of others on January 6, 2001.
This is what Nancy Pelosi said about Trump just before the Butler assassination attempt. "This is not a normal election where you want to win and if you don't, you cooperate and do the best you can for the country and hope to win the next time. This is something that is undermining our democracy. He must be stopped. He cannot be president." (quoted in RealClearPolitics 07/02/2024). This is not the same as saying your opponent’s policies would be bad for the country, that he is “gonna put y’all back in chains,” that he is Putin’s puppet, that his personality is disagreeable. Extreme rhetoric is baked into the First Amendment and is a normal part of our political process. Pelosi’s statement is different in that she explicitly rejects the normal democratic process, ostensibly to protect democracy itself, a stance which logically predicates some kind of extraordinary intervention. As I see it, this kind of rhetoric is only coming from one side.
Eli is absolutely correct. The trap is sprung and you can now see the end game for first amendment principles. The fruit was too low for too long. It’s much easier to lazily claim words are violence than to have discourse about the benefits of your own ideas. Not click baity enough. The legal definition of incite used to be a word of art in the context of free speech. Apparently now everything “incites”.
I see clips of political debates from the 80’s and 90’s and wonder what happened in the interim. We’ve lost our ability to be civil, witty and funny while making serious political points. It’s now devolved into existential threats to drive voter turnout. I’m hoping the last 10-20 years is simply a test period we’ll look back upon with wonder. Somewhere the algorithms decided you only have to call the other side names and there’s no requirement to talk with the public to prove your ideas are better for the country. Better yet, we need to stop others from publicly challenging our ideas.
The authoritarians unfortunately have coaxed us to the edge of this slippery slope. One day soon me publicly chastising govt policy will be determined by the govt, the sole authority to determine that which is true or civil, to be seditious or hate speech worthy of jail time. You may say that’s hyperbole. Just wait.
It’s happening in Spain. Today. Big brother is here and his name is Pedro Sanchez and his socialist/communist coalition government which will now forever remain in power.
I wanted to like this article's conclusion, but the trip there was full of potholes ; p Democrats call Trump a "threat to democracy" because of his conduct around the 2020 election and Jan 6, period, which has continued to infect the GOP since, with a large percentage of Republican officeholders at least cynically playing along with "stolen election" rhetoric as a vehicle to attempt to disenfranchise large numbers of voters (presumed to be voting Democratic) and to give powers to county elections boards run by True Believers to toss out results without any standards of proof of fraud, or to otherwise gum up the works to create chaos and doubt around results that will be close and determinative. You can agree or disagree that "stolen election" is a Big Lie, but you can't disagree that this is the viewpoint of the vast majority of Democrats and their voters. It's entirely rationale, therefore, for Democrats to clearly state that Trump is a threat to democracy on that basis and oppose him on that basis, and not "extreme rhetoric" that just demonizes Trump because they dislike his "policies" (he needs to have some to dislike).
On the other hand, Trump and his supporters regularly state that Democratic leaders, any Trump opposition (including Republicans and former Republicans), the entire media that is not explicitly right wing friendly, all institutions coded as "left", and by extension the 50% or so of Democratic voters are "evil", "enemies within", "destroying the country", "hate America", "hate YOU (Trump supporters)", "if I (Trump) don't win you won't have a country anymore", are "communists", "Marxists", "pedophiles", they will "steal your sacred elections (if there's any result that Trump doesn't win)", and I'm probably just reciting the top phrases from Trump's Truth Social posts in the last 24 hours. His rallies are filled with the same rhetoric, and it's these lines that really get the crowd going and cheering, Harris was right, however that they get bored when he goes on 10 minute long discursive rambles about sharks, electric boats and Hannibal Lecter - but talk about "locking up" various Democrats (which started back in 2016 with of course "Lock Her Up" led chants about HRC) and taking "revenge" on "his" enemies (which are of course "yours" too!) and all the supposed "predations" of the left gets the crowds going.
Has anyone considered that the recent shooter (the first one I believe was shown not to have an anti-Trump fixation at all but just wanted to go out on a Big Historical Note of assassinating an Important Person, who was equally open to shooting Biden or Trump, and Trump “won” just because he happened to holding an even in the area) was motivated not by Democratic “rhetoric” about Trump, but about Trump’s own words? How is it not as likely that Trump calling an entire political party and its voters and associating it with every cultural trend they dislike “evil” and “destroying America” is not inciting folks against him directly? I don’t need to watch “MSNBC” or hear Trump’s words sane-washed by NY times or have Kamala Harris tell me what he is saying is bad - anyone can hear it straight from Trump himself, so I’m surprised there’s not even a tiny bit of introspection here that Trump may be the one inciting the crazies himself - both the ones for him as well as the ones against him.
Blaming the "victim"? Maybe, or just calling it like I see it. You can't really believe that anyone who is upset about Trump's rhetoric is only upset because Democrats are telling them Trump's a bad guy, that they can't see, read and hear Trump's rhetoric themselves, and ask yourself if there's any reason whatsoever for a certain type of mindset to find any of that threatening on its own, regardless of what Democrats do or do not say about it. Trump has made his entire political career about being deliberately polarizing, belligerent and over the top rhetorically. His supporters have reveled in this. Unfortunately that comes with risk in a nation awash in high powered guns easily accessible by pretty much anyone including very unstable and dangerous individuals - blaming "the Democrats" for people reacting to stuff they can see and hear plainly coming from him, if at that is the case, is not going to alter the risk - even if Harris only talks about Trump's ridiculous tariff "policy" Trump's still out there talking about the "enemies" he wants to punish if he gets back into power, and of course the 2020 election fallout of Trump's "Stolen Election" lies and Jan 6 is hardly that far back in the rearview for anyone to put that together and conclude for themselves that "Trump is a threat to democracy". I'm not justifying attempts on his life btw, the only way to beat him is once again at the ballot box and this time be ready for the tantruming, at least he won't be running the federal government for over 2 months after the fact - but if we're looking around for reasons as to why someone with access to guns and planning would want to take out Trump because of "rhetoric", consider what the "rhetoric" might be and where it's coming from that they're responding to.
Or…people’s political expressions shouldn’t be cause for violence and we should stop rationalizing criminal behavior because it’s committed against the other side.
You're not nearly as smart as you obviously think you are.
ah well ;p
Summarized…trump started it.
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.
If I understand you correctly, it is Trump's rhetoric that is the reason for the BLM riots in Democrat-run cities.
Thank you for opening my eyes!
Of the stew of ingredients that produced the Summer 2020 riots, yes Donald Trump was *one* of the many matches tossed into the fire, at least in part due to his failure at leadership and crisis management - and the long simmering cracks he helped widen in differences and relations, particularly racial. Sorry for the mixed metaphor though!
If it makes you feel better, I do hold local and state officials accountable as well that allowed disorder to continue for far too long, and minimized their responsibility for public safety and order.
"If it makes you feel better" - No, it doesn't.
I remember "mostly peaceful protests", students in London screaming to police "Don't shoot" (in London!), red vaginas. Of course, Trump ignited them. He was elected by Putin, who also created Cambridge Analytica and Brexit.
You know what's most interesting. Progressives never admit their own mistakes. Never! On the contrary, the more stupid mistake they make, the more efforts they make to go in the wrong direction, following Hegel's maxim "if facts contradict theory, then so much the worse for the facts."
NetZero to 2030 is a classical example of this arrogance of educated idiots.
There's a big difference between blaming speech and banning it. Blaming speech is itself speech! As long as it's a citizen asking others to tone it down, let's stay out of the way. If the government is trying to make them tone it down, then we have work to do.
Have to disagree with Eli on this one. The man who tried to shoot Trump in Florida was on a "Hero's Journey." That's why he went to Ukraine. To be a hero, both to himself and the world. And what better way to be a hero -- to the media, the Left, the elite -- than to shoot today's Hitler. There are many more such people at loose, and they will be watching for their curtain call.
The left says "silence is violence," questioning their dogma is violence, asking questions is violence, Trump is Hitler and the end of democracy, etc etc while condoning actual violence as "protest." I am a free speech absolutist but you cannot reasonably equate what the two sides here are doing. It is not the same.
TDS, TDS, TDS. Pretty simple, Eli.
Bookended as it was by Secret Service ineptitude and FBI secrecy, Butler unfortunately bears the taint of potential involvement more than rhetorical inspiration. But saying that would just motivate more pointless squabbling like cats and dogs.