Trump

[Brookie1973]

I'm going to be back for a short stint again after the Charlie Kirk event brought the US back to my focus.

By this stage im over the whole debating online thing. My assumption coming in was that MAGA was some form of a reactionary cult. Curiosity lured me here initially; I wondered the reasons why some Australian's jumped aboard. Unfortunately, my patience wore thin. However, things continue to escalate and develop over there that keep bringing me back. When I don't understand your conclusions, I will instead ask questions rather than try convince you of what I think and why. My previous approach was unhelpful. For this post, I will recap some observations I made in the past and touch on a Fox News clip I came across today to see where you stand on it.

In the past I often pointed out the increased use of violent rhetoric including terms such as 'radical left', 'extremists', 'illegal aliens', 'enemies' etc. It started with Trump and right-wing media in the first term. The rise in violent rhetoric culminated in the unprecedented January 6 riots at the end of that period. Simultaneously, far-right influencers were becoming pertinent online. By 2024, there were a large crop of Christian nationalists online pushing for theocratic style ideas and others focused on demonising minority groups (trans people, gay people, muslims). By 2025, Trump has rapidly begun repealing rights across the US and his rhetoric is far more authoritarian in nature. While Charlie Kirk did not deserve violence by any stretch of the imagination, I appreciate the irony that that he was shot while demonising trans people.

There has been quite a substantial difference in how the administration responded to Kirk's assassination (demonising the left before knowing anything about the killer's politics or motives) compared to that of Melissa Hortman. Hortman was assassinated in her home some months ago along with her husband and pet Labrador (killed by a verified right-wing extremist).

My primary argument all those months ago was that the irrationalism and division being sowed by Trump and right-wing media is reckless. Chances are that both Kirk and Hortman's killers were mentally ill and bolstered by small echo-chambers online.

1. Do you feel that the use of 'they', 'the radical left' etc. is reckless or justified in hindsight?
2. If justified, what leads you to that conclusion? And do you perceive it as a collaborative effort or a select few individuals acting on their own volition?

Just today I came across a fox news snippet which struck me as 'not normal'. While initially discussing some understandable concerns with the homeless the first host soon conflated them with the mentally ill. He then teetered with the idea of 'locking them all up in jails' (homeless + mentally ill). But the reason I thought to come back to Silvertails was the followup comment. 50 seconds into the clip the 2nd host butted in to say "or involentary lethal injection, or something... just kill them". While not a spokesperson for Trump, such desensitisation in popular media resembles that held in Germany society during the late 1930's. Their first targets were the homeless, immigrants and the mentally ill; actioned by a paramilitary group that answer only to the leader. All those ingredients are there in the US and I think it is a real concern.

3. Do you think it is overreacting to draw parallels between modern US and Nazi Germany
4. If so, where do you draw the line?

https://www.reddit.com/r/law/comments/1nfmaks/foxs_kilmeade_suggests_killing_the_homeless

The divisiveness in American politics started with Obama. The rise of Trump was/is a reaction to the vilification of conservatives under Obama.

 

[h27272727]

The divisiveness in American politics started with Obama. The rise of Trump was/is a reaction to the vilification of conservatives under Obama.

Ok that's a good start. As an outsider, this idea appears to come a little out of the blue.

The first example I can think to reinforce this currently is the Obama vs Romney debate of 2012. Politics appear extremely civil and respectful in these times (from both sides). They talk about policy and don't define the people they're appealing to for support. 5 years ago Romney also repeated that Obama was an honourable family man. I think the Republican party has completely changed since then, while the Democrats remained fairly centre (potentially to their detriment).

Here are Romney's comments since then:
“I’m, as you know, not a supporter of President Trump’s. I didn’t support him in this election. I didn’t the last time he ran either, largely for matters of character,”

“MAGA is the Republican Party and Donald Trump is the Republican Party today,”

1. Say your claim was objectively true and lead to MAGA. In what ways is it beneficial for Trump to continue weaponising language? Won't it just escalate indefinitely?
2. Placing yourself back to pre-2016 times, do you recall it being common that Obama fans were called 'radical lefts', and immigrants "illegal aliens"?
3. How exactly did you arrive at the idea Obama started it? I won't debate or judge you here, just want to get a better idea of where that idea comes from.

 

[Brookie1973]

Ok that's a good start. As an outsider, this idea appears to come a little out of the blue.

The first example I can think to reinforce this currently is the Obama vs Romney debate of 2012. Politics appear extremely civil and respectful in these times (from both sides). They talk about policy and don't define the people they're appealing to for support. 5 years ago Romney also repeated that Obama was an honourable family man. I think the Republican party has completely changed since then, while the Democrats remained fairly centre (potentially to their detriment).

Here are Romney's comments since then:
“I’m, as you know, not a supporter of President Trump’s. I didn’t support him in this election. I didn’t the last time he ran either, largely for matters of character,”

“MAGA is the Republican Party and Donald Trump is the Republican Party today,”

1. Say your claim was objectively true and lead to MAGA. In what ways is it beneficial for Trump to continue weaponising language? Won't it just escalate indefinitely?
2. Placing yourself back to pre-2016 times, do you recall it being common that Obama fans were called 'radical lefts', and immigrants "illegal aliens"?
3. How exactly did you arrive at the idea Obama started it? I won't debate or judge you here, just want to get a better idea of where that idea comes from.

I think this ground has been covered in the other thread - “prove me wrong”.

 

[h27272727]

I think this ground has been covered in the other thread - “prove me wrong”.

What are your thoughts on the assassin of Charlie Kirk? Came from a republican gun-loving family. Current understanding is that he posted on far-right pages linked to a group (Groypers) lead by Nick Fuentes (FAR right leader, holocaust denier).

Ironically, appears he was opposed to Kirk's inflammatory rhetoric. The second political assassination this year is likely another far-right white guy. The guy who tried to assassinate Trump last year was also a registered republican. I do think statistically it is more likely right wing individuals engage in political violence. Nonetheless, it may be coincidence and I still think the main issues are a combination of mental illness, stupid gun laws and the reckless rise of divisive/violent political rhetoric as discussed in that other thread. (driven primarily by Trump, right wing media, social media communities + popular influencers).

Off the bat the President (amongst many other Republican leaders) stated it was 'the radical left'. I even saw some people on conservative forums mentioning they were ready for war and that the leftie who did it should be subject to public execution... On Fox News Trump discussed that there should be 1 day trials like how they do it in China. Lucky the first two people they incorrectly caught weren't hurt in the witch hunt.

​