[goodside]

Thanks — I agree that’s a bit worse. But it’s still pretty clear he’s speaking in the context of what the President should do, and obviously the President can’t have his enemies’ heads displayed Tudor-style on the White House fence. He’s not bringing up Tudors as a sincere suggestion, he’s arguing that any (realistic) punishment would be mild by historical standards.

[boublepop]

So he’s calling for the president to murder a person and your defending his position by saying “obviously the president can’t have people murdered”.

Let’s say someone was calling for the gassing of Jews, would you also defend their position with a sentiment of: “ but that’s ok, because obviously a state can’t just start rounding up Jews and gassing them”?

Or perhaps his speech should be judged on his stated intent ?

[_y5hn]

He's also clamouring for civil war, in addition to dreaming for murder, instead of just firing everyone not licking their boots. This is a direct threat to civil discourse, democracy and fairness. It is evil.