I’m pointing it out to you, because I read it today, even if it’s a bit hidden in the newspapers, that it concerns Kamal Harrisnot exactly someone who would walk by whistling, but she is vice president of the United States and should replace Biden if he goes completely mad. Kamala Harris, before the attack, in a rally, yesterday, not 8 years ago, but before the rally, do you know what she said? “We should never again think of seeing Donald Trump behind a microphone”.
Perfect, perfect. So who is inciting hatred? The Vice President of the United States who says he never wants to see Donald Trump behind a microphone again? What the f*ck does ‘never see again’ mean? Donald Trump behind a microphone? That one takes it, shoots it and the one behind the microphone you don’t see anymore.
So, am I exaggerating? Yes, maybe I am exaggerating. But when you analyze the fact that Donald Trump was shot, not fatally, but for a thousandth, what is the problem according to the newspapers? Is it that he is divisive for America?
Yes, of course. All politicians are divisive, Berlusconi was too. Maybe only those on the left get everyone to agree and those who don’t agree are shitty texts, but when someone is divisive, Milei is divisivewhat do we do, do we kill him because he is divisive? Do we justify the fact that someone can carry out an attack because he is divisive?
I don’t want to talk about a hate campaign. But if the vice president of the United States, Kamal Harrissays that Trump should never be behind a microphone again, I think the comment to make is “there is hatred, the campaigns are divisive, but some f**king responsibility, these gentlemen who consider Trump a less than abenswith their president that I would like to talk about, well, in short they must have him”.