mhaze,

You’re right, I used the word “vengeance.” Because what’s being communicated, even when not spelled out, walks and quacks like it. That’s the whole point. Tone, implication, and emotional framing matter - especially when powerful figures are involved.

Trump didn’t need to say “vengeance.” He said, “beat the hell out of radical-left lunatics.” He didn’t call for a moment of silence or national unity. He went straight to “They did this. We must fight.” That’s not just confronting ideas. That’s confrontation as identity. And no, I wasn’t thrilled when Obama used dumb “bring a gun to a knife fight” metaphors either - but we both know Trump’s rhetoric is constant, personalised, and directed at fellow citizens.

As for the Nolte quote, again, you're pretending it’s neutral. He literally claimed that Democrats, Hollywood, and the media are running a murder campaign against conservatives. That’s not analysis. That’s fantasy justification - If they're trying to kill us, we must act first. That’s how vengeance is framed without ever using the word.

You’re asking for a smoking gun in a room filling with smoke.

And no, pointing out the dangerous direction of rhetoric doesn’t mean excusing political violence from the left. I’ve condemned it repeatedly. But cherry-picking individual court cases doesn’t change the broader concern: that grievance + dehumanisation + glorified retaliation creates an atmosphere where justice and revenge blur.

What I’m doing is flagging the shift in tone, the myth-making, and the narrative momentum. If you're unwilling to hear that without demanding a verbatim quote from a villain twirling his moustache, you’re not defending reason - you're defending denial.

"He didn’t call for a moment of silence or national unity."
- What would be the point of this?
The progressive left are not going to make friends with the religious right, or vice versa.
It 'sounds good', but where does it exist in practice?

When the religious right try to draw a line in the sand, the progressive left see it as an existential threat to and attack upon their identity.
When the progressive left draw a line in the sand, the religious right see that as an existential threat upon their religion and their way of life.

"He literally claimed that Democrats, Hollywood, and the media are running a murder campaign against conservatives."
- Well they kind of do, each side sees the others mere existence as a threat.

The left is a gay and an immigrant saying "Everything must change" and "Free Palestine"
The right are old religious grandpa's saying "Things must stay the same" and "I support Israel unconditionally"
Between these 2 camps is a grey zone the rest of us have to live in

Hi AC,

You're probably right, although I don't have a problem as a progressive hang'n out with a few of the old "churchies" who tend to be somewhat dogmatic and very conservative at times. I can tolerate their views, no matter how misguided, and way out they can be. Then I have to say, no person is a total progressive or a total conservative, although a couple of the Old Farts on this little forum come pretty close.

Surprisingly politics in America is very divisive at the moment, even thought I always believed it's a one party state, with two heads vying to run the show, with no one willing to upset Capitalism, which ultimately controls the system. I call it hamster politics, you can change the hamster, but the wheel must continue to turn in the "right" direction. What do you think?

Surprisingly politics in America is very divisive at the moment,
Paul1405,
Wrong wording, Democrats in America are very divisive. Just like here !

"You’re asking for a smoking gun in a room filling with smoke."

And you can't point to a single example from the right of this vengeance that you see all around. Think about that.

More:
10/9 Kirk murdered
14/9 Bombs placed under a Fox new van
19/9 CBS studios shot up
20/9 Nashua Country Club shooting
24/9 Dallas ICE facility shooting

All from the left.

When Floyd died there were riots, murderers, lootings, fires, destruction aplenty. City blocks destroyed. All for a drug addict with a long and sorry criminal record.

When Kirk died, they held a memorial when thousands came to or reaffirmed their religion. The only violence was from the left protesting those peacefully lining up for the memorial.

They are not the same. But people like JD desperately want the guilt to be reversed and so sees a smoke filled room where none exists.

When people from the right start shooting up innocents on the left, then JD will have some credence. But alas he won't recognise it even then.

PS: This is what consequences look like... http://tiny.cc/cb2t001

This is what conservative vengeance looks like...http://tristardaily.com/lsu-announces-lecture-series-honoring-charlie-kirk-to-promote-free-speech/

mhaze,

I don’t need a “smoking gun” because I never said the right was committing violence over Kirk’s death. I said the rhetoric around his death is escalating into something dangerous - with martyrdom narratives, grievance framing, and the kind of emotionally loaded language that primes escalation. That’s how it always begins.

You demand examples of right-wing violence in response to Kirk, while overlooking the larger concern: that grief is being used to mobilise, not mourn. Trump’s “beat the hell out of radical-left lunatics” line. Nolte’s claim of a “murder campaign” against conservatives. These aren’t calls for reflection. They’re setups for justification.

As for the incidents you cited:

- The Fox News bomb claim turned out to be a false alarm involving fireworks.
- The CBS studios “shooting” involved a single non-political gun incident in LA with no confirmed motive.
- The Dallas ICE facility incident has had no official link to ideology.
- The Nashua shooting was a domestic dispute misrepresented as political.

Throwing vague, decontextualised events into a pile doesn't prove a pattern - it’s narrative laundering. Meanwhile, we have well-documented right-wing attacks: Charlottesville, Tree of Life, Buffalo, January 6, and a foiled plot to kidnap a governor - all explicitly ideological, all carried out in the name of “saving the country” from some perceived leftist evil.

I've already covered the comparison in a different thread, an mentioned it in my first comment on this thready. Remember? It's not a road you want to go down.

And now we’re watching Kirk - a divisive political figure - elevated into a martyr-saint archetype, complete with lecture series, moral crusades, and spiritual revival language. That’s not consequence, that’s canonisation. And it’s being fuelled not by facts, but by a curated story of cultural persecution.

I’m not reversing guilt. I’m pointing out a dangerous narrative drift - where grief becomes myth, and myth becomes mobilisation. It’s not about who’s shooting. It’s about who’s lighting matches.

If you can’t see the smoke, that’s your prerogative. But don’t pretend the people waving the torches are just lighting candles.