My original post also held that my discomfort was my own.

You’ve basically recontextualized your argument as, “It’s bad because I think it’s bad.” I’m happy that you’ve admitted the subjectivity of your stance, but I still hold that outside that highly subjective context, there is a completely legitimate rationale for considering this “fair game” where other so-called…

I’m pointing at that there are perfectly legitimate grounds for accepting one and rejecting the other. You call it a false equivalency, which is patently wrong, when it’s simply another angle to view the relationship between the public, the candidates, and the way they’re presented in social media.

It was “unacceptable,” yet passed around many circles without a thought. Obama was a professor of constitutional law with years of public service. Trump is a charlatan and a fraudster. Besides the goose/gander dynamic, frankly, this is the level of satire that he deserves, and far from striving for something “better,”…

The likelihood of a tragedy certainly affects the poor taste of making fun of that hypothetical tragedy. When Chris Rock’s Head of State was released, it was funny that he made a joke about his character possibly being assassinated if he ran, because it was assumed that the chances of a black man getting a party…

I think that’s sort of the point. There’s a very clear difference between a candidate who is simply receiving death threats and a candidate who is receiving death threats in part because their opponent is actively encouraging such thought.

Has anyone threatened to kill Trump? I’ve heard plenty of death threats leveled against Clinton.

This is so tame compared to some of the rhetoric coming from his side that being offended by it shows quite a severe case of “Can dish it but can’t take it,”uenza. Yes, let’s calm down. But I say that the onus is on Trump et al. to start that ball rolling.