Just curious, but do you condemn the rhetoric that Trump uses to criticize the Dems the same way you criticize the rhetoric that is used against Trump?

My personal opinion is that truth is the measure a lot of rhetoric should be measured against, not bitterness or cruelty. There is a lot of truth to the mainstream criticisms of Donald Trump, but I see a lot of lies in his criticisms of the Democrats...

That isn't to say no Democrat (mainstream or otherwise) has gone too far with their rhetoric, but I think there is a clear difference between most of the noise coming out of the two camps. 

American politics is about emotions. The strongest emotion is fear. So using ever greater hyperbole and exaggeration the two sides attack and label each other. They both use the narrative: "If the other side wins, the country is finished, your children will have no future, so not let them win!!"

Only the young and naive take this language literal in the olden days.

But unfortunate in a world with information bubbles and with social media working as a megaphone to continue to repeat and hammer these kinds of rhetoric home, it has a brainwashing effect that have people believe the other side is pure evil.

It is like literally people of the same country unable to speak or understand each other any more, consumed by their own confirmation bias.

People should just take a step back, take a deep breath and learn the power of nuance.

Well, as far as the current state of American politics: There's one thing you can say, never a dull moment in the USA.

I disagree, the strongest emotion is anger.  Fear can lead to anger, as I believe it did with this shooter. The shooter shot in anger, not in fear.

What rhetoric would that be exactly?  Could you be more specific? Personally I can't think of a worse rhetoric than "this person is basically Hitler" and all the loose and not-so-loose references to him being killed the other side has mongered in the mainstream for eight years.

I agree that truth should be what rhetoric should me measured on.  The bitterness and cruelty I'm referencing is the open, zealous cries of demise for someone they don't like.  I'd bet money most of the same ones wishing death on the man have no idea what he actually did as president, only that they feel a certain way, those feelings being installed by the same media that despises him.  

Republicans think democrats are wrong and the far left is evil in their eyes. The democrats think orange man bad because the tv told them and that he should die.  Is that the clear difference? 

My initial and overall point was about assassinations and you compared that to mass shootings. I can only hope you weren't being serious or don't get it because that would mean 4 or more Presidents at the same time, which hasn't ever happened and is just absurd based on what I said.

I'm not suggesting anything, I made a point, and you're either not being serious and equating it with something else or again, just don't get it.

As for why not try it and see if it works, everyone knows once something get's implemented, it's very difficult to remove, especially if it get's implemented at the highest levels of Government, then it's darn near impossible to remove. Yet even when some entity does all the hard work, or comes along with the power and ability to remove something, and does finally remove it, then the next person who comes along with enough power will likely just put it back into place. It's pretty rare when something get's removed and stays removed. You're unaware of this?

You tried to make a point about assassinations and guns with mass shootings, in another Country at that, which was already outside the point. Then assassination plots, the one's known anyway, which is way outside the point because they don't necessarily include guns, with an example of throwing a grenade, which isn't a gun. Why not take into account throwing shoes, which happened, was a ridiculous point to show how far you were from the main point already, so far in no way could I take it seriously. Again, you're not being genuine or you just don't get it.

I wont be responding again FYI. Clearly there is a large disconnect here that looks to be insurmountable, and I'm not going to take part in playing games or raising the temperature. Everyone see's where that's got America.

There's calling for civil war and then there's just mentioning it for reasons, like the temperatures rising to high and needs to stop. How often do Reps call for civil war? And no, any Dems thinking there's some conspiratorial secret code going on between Reps doesn't count because it's not a thing.

I'm not going to list all the negative things the Dems say about the Reps, Trump in particular, because it's too long and we all know it. Neither side is void of this.

As to the X post. How many Reps think what happened on Jan 6th, beyond the protest itself, was acceptable? How many Reps think DJT should be assassinated? Isn't DJT the Rep candidate (very soon to be official), chosen by the Rep voters? If you're against Trump and those voters, willing to take a shot at Trump, what does that make you? It doesn't automatically make you a Dem, but it also certainly means you're against Trump and those who stand behind him. Anybody can call themselves whatever they want, but it doesn't necessarily make it true.

I'm also not going to list all the Dem violence, because we all know as well. Neither side is void of this.

Taking a side, then trying to prove it's all or only the opposition, is just taking the assassination level temperatures and turning them up even more. It's the kind of thing that leads to civil war. So if civil was isn't what you want, you shouldn't be taking part in that.

I don't think it would have led to civil war, but Jan 6th would've ended up being seen as a legit peaceful protest compared to what would've followed.

What I'm most scared of is another attempt on Trump or even one on Biden, whether it be motivated by politics, enemies, or just bad actors looking to cause ultimate chaos for the hell of it. That's something that could very well spark civil war, especially if it's fatal.

I'd say both are about equal. It just depends on what those in power want.

Do they want you to hide or vote in terror?

or

Do they want you to shoot or vote in rage?