[hellotheretoday]

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...

[Andrew_nenakhov]

> 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)

[bluecheese452]

The press does not “cuddle”. Did the Kremlim cut the budget for English classes?

[Andrew_nenakhov]

Of course, the press does cuddle its darlings. Compare any first-term Trump's press conference with Biden's press conference: a pack of wolves that screamed and shouted suddenly morphed into cute fawning puppies: "what kind of ice cream do you like, mr president?"

Regarding your accusation that I work for Kremlin, you should be ashamed of yourself to say such things to a person who was literally beaten by Putin's polizai for protesting his policies. In your simplistic mindset, anyone who has a differing opinion from you surely must be a paid troll working for evil people. It is very fitting that you exhibit this attitude in a discussion about a person who was killed for his views. Should I be shot, too? I surely have it coming, right?

[bluecheese452]

The word you are looking for is coddle, not cuddle. You cuddle a pet or a spouse. You coddle your favorite politician with preferential coverage.

Good on you for protesting his policies. But maybe don’t spread his propaganda for free? I never celebrated, excused or wished death on anyone. Shame on you for implying that.

[Andrew_nenakhov]

No, thank you, but the word I needed was something that would describe a warm, loving embrace, like when you take a pet in your arms and caress it (I even pushed this metaphor further in the next comment, about loving puppies), and I believe that "cuddle" is the exact word for that.

[bluecheese452]

I guarantee you no native speaker would ever use the word cuddle like you did. That is why it was so jarring to read.

[NickC25]

>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.

[Andrew_nenakhov]

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

I tend to think that many white people voted for Obama in part because he was black. Like, we elected this guy, can we now finally put aside the question of racism? And then, somehow, instead of putting aside the question of race, it was dialled up to 11, with all these diversity quotas and DEI initiatives.

Btw you too are guilty of furthering this division: your instant reaction to criticism of Obama was to play the racist card! Of course, the only reason someone can criticise mr Obama is because they don't like the color of his skin!

[NickC25]

>the only reason someone can criticise mr Obama is because they don't like the color of his skin!

I have roundly criticized Obama for the last 17 years since he was elected. I was critical during his tenure, and critical of his actions after his tenure. He doesn't get a pass.

I voted for him in 2008, not because he was black, or because he was a Democrat, but because I was sick of no-bid contract loving Neo Cons whose stock portfolio was antithetical to national security, and thus I wanted and voted for change.

But let's look at his actions and what I disliked.

Drone strikes? Yup. Critical of those. Bailing out Wall Street? Yup. Some of those bankers should have been jailed, versus bailed out with golden parachutes. Continuing the forever wars in the Middle East? Of course I critiqued those. Ignoring actions by our "friends" in the middle east that furthered Arab hatred of the US? Absolutely hated that too. Trying to pacify Putin after his attacks in Georgia, invasion of the Donbas? Yes. Was particularly hard on him for this. Not standing up to the GOP reactionary wing? Yes, I blamed that on him too. Failed healthcare policy? Of course I have issues with that.

Let's stop pretending that Obama was some sort of liberal or far leftist. The dude was pretty center-right by world standards, and only considered remotely left because the GOP had spent the Bush II administration pushing the Overton window about a hundred quadrillion light years to the right.

I could go on. But as someone who spent some time in GOP heavy rural areas during one of Obama's campaigns, I can tell you a lot of the people in those areas routinely began their critiques of Obama with a word that starts with an N and ends with an -ER.

[zahlman]

> You want to know why a lot of those people thought Obama was so divisive?

In the past, I have wanted to know, so I asked several of them over the years. Now I understand quite well.

> who are reactionary by nature

This is untrue.

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

So is this.

> and was criticized by the right for his skin color.

This is not even remotely a fair characterization.

> so they had to use emotional cues to insult him personally.

Such as?