Trump's shocking battlefield threat raises questions about political discourse norms
Media coverage fails to highlight stark differences in campaign rhetoric between Harris and Trump. Recent statements from both sides show growing gap in whatʼs considered acceptable political speech
In todays heated pre-election environment the media is missing a key-point about whats acceptable in political speech. While various public figures made controversial statements this week their impact pales in comparison to recent developments
The news cycle got side-tracked by comedian Tony Hinchcliffe and President Bidenʼs back-and-forth about “garbage“ remarks; a crude ad from Elon Muskʼs group also made headlines (along with Mark Cubanʼs comments)
At an oct-2024 Arizona rally Donald Trump crossed a serious line — he suggested that Liz Cheney should face “nine barrels shooting at her“ on a battlefield. This wasnt just a one-time slip: heʼs been talking about using military force against what he calls “the enemy from within.“ Last month he called people around Vice President Harris “scum“ that want to destroy the country; theyʼre absolute garbage he said
In contrast Kamala Harris keeps her campaign rhetoric focused on policy and reaching across party lines. She doesnt use threatening language or personal attacks — instead choosing to appeal directly to potential Trump supporters
The difference between campaigns acceptable-speech standards needs more attention: its not just about disagreeing on policies anymore. When violent rhetoric becomes normalized in political discourse; democracy faces real risks. The media must point out whats outside normal political debate boundaries
Theyʼre scum and they want to take down our country. They are absolute garbage
