[archdang]

There are quite a few to be found if you look around.

From Wikipedia: On January 4, 2021 (the day before the Capitol attack), Kirk tweeted that Turning Point Action and Students for Trump were sending more than 80 “buses of patriots” to Washington, D.C. to “fight for this president.”

On March 21st 2024, he called for the whipping and using rubber bullets and lethal force on migrants at the southern border.

Sounds plenty violent to me. I'd have to agree with those who say there are grounds for seeing Kirk as someone who frequently advocated for violence.

[gruez]

>From Wikipedia: On January 4, 2021 (the day before the Capitol attack), Kirk tweeted that Turning Point Action and Students for Trump were sending more than 80 “buses of patriots” to Washington, D.C. to “fight for this president.”

Was it clear 2 days before Jan 6 that it was going to be violent, or does this hinge on the "fight" wording?

>On March 21st 2024, he called for the whipping and using rubber bullets and lethal force on migrants at the southern border.

See: >except perhaps the government monopoly on force (e.g. to speak in favour of the death penalty).

[archdang]

Yes, Kirk advocated for a violent solution due to the election not going his way. It's also standing in stark juxtaposition to how Brazil handled similar issues with a much greater level of integrity.

"Expect perhaps" now seems as only so much weasel words. Whipping? What manner of government monopoly on violence needs to include whipping?

[yepitwas]

What could “fight for this President” possibly mean when you’re sending people to the capital, after the election’s over, while telling them the election was stolen, on the very day that the election is to be formally certified? The election was over, the contest had ended… so far as legal options that follow the usual route for the peaceful transfer of power. What does “fight” mean here? What is someone using that kind of language around an event like that trying to accomplish?

I think it’s prodding people to do something dangerous and illegal and a risk to democracy herself, and I’m not really sure what else it could be.

(Why… would Trump hold a rally in DC on that particular day to begin with? And why did he and other speakers choose to say what they did? None of this is mysterious, it’s easy to read, but it still seems to be eluding a lot of folks in ways that it don’t think it would in any analogous situation that didn’t involve partisan politics)