The problem is that your political opponents say similar things. They're convinced - perhaps wrongly, but as far as I can tell honestly - that anti-Trump politicians are encouraging political violence and will commit more terror attacks in the name of preventing an authoritarian takeover. They point to James Hodgkinson the same way you point to Cesar Sayoc. As someone who's extremely opposed to political violence but not strongly partisan, how can I avoid splitting the difference here?
* James Hodgkinson wasn't motivated by a politician's platform or speeches. This is the material difference that makes me wonder if you're asking this in good faith or not. No mainstream politicians suggested violence against standing Republican congressmen. None of Trump's opponents are saying they are going to ignore the results of any election.
* The politicians Hodgkinson supported immediately condemned his actions in no uncertain terms. There were no half measures. No "both sides" talk.
* This is one unprompted (see point 1 above) incident compared to dozens of cases of violence or threats motivated directly by Trump & his speeches [0]. Trump supporters specifically have this history of violence.
* Among right-wingers, this history of violence is not specific to Trump [1], [2].
Again, your political opponents say the same thing. They tell me that their leaders immediately and definitively condemned Sayoc, tell me that your leaders did not condemn Hodgkinson to their satisfaction, and show me lists [0] of citizens being threatened or assaulted for wearing Trump campaign gear. There may well be obvious and numerous differences - I tend to agree with you that there are! - but you're not getting a complete picture if you're seeing political violence as a one-sided phenomenon.
