Something something sitting at a table with nazis...
Sure other places aren't perfect, but this seems like an easy one to settle. The bill of rights have limits as already established by US courts, why in "defense" of the 1st amendment does the US feel like it has to be a nazi? I can't answer that, I don't ascribe to whatever belief they've got over there.
Hi, it's me, a non extreme feminist! (We agree, except on the word never and always, so just read)
Sometimes it looks like extremes because in order to have equality, or equity, you have to change existing systems that promote the inequality and inequity. This to some may look like favouring the minority (power not number), when in fact it could just be trying to undo some of the damage. For example, changing a system that promotes men over women would involve maybe extra research into women's health, because studies almost always don't take into account that women's bodies are different. BMI was built for men, dosages for medication are typically figured out for men, etc. Same goes with other minorites, btw. This extra research may make a majority group member feel like the system is prioritising others to the detriment of their self, when in fact it's just trying to establish an equilibrium, as that research (from the example) is already there for them.
Now from people? Yes, you are right. Sometimes (you may say often or a hyperbolic always) adherents will be wrong about what feminism is. That's a struggle that the idea has to contend with just like every other movement. But feminism itself isn't about extremes of hate, though the systemic change to bring about feminist goals may feel extreme due to the scale of work to be done.
While yes I'm sure it contributed, I think a lot of people voted because their rent and groceries were too expensive, so that means "vote for the party not in power". It makes zero sense, but I have to hope that they're just uninformed and desperate and not eager for what Trump and 2025 crew want.
Ultimately though, it's on them. It was their responsibility to know what they're voting for, and they failed. Now we can only hope they're too incompetent to do what they want.
You could make a case that based on his other comments and stochastic terrorist language that what he said was dangerous, but those claiming that this specific instance was a threat either didn't listen closely to what he said (you don't give someone facing a firing squad a rifle of their own), or just listen to those media reports who are purposefully spreading disinformation.
He has made plenty of statements that are prosecutable, people don't need to grasp at straws.
To answer the question, yeah if you said the same thing Trump did about Cheney, you'd be fine. It wasn't a threat. He said give her a rifle and put her on the front lines if she's so eager to have a war, see how she feels then.
That's said, Vote. Vote for Harris. While Trump didn't advocate for putting Cheney in front of a firing squad here, he has asked his military personnel to kill citizens and next time he won't have someone that will stop him.
This is the key that too many straight men who use words like "friend zone" and "game" and "incel" just don't realise.. don't go hunting for a bride like some caveman. Go make friends. Live your life by doing the things you like, treat women like women not like a prize to be won. Make male and female friends, don't just talk to women who you're attracted to. Find friends, and not with the anticipation that one of them will turn into a girlfriend. "Friend zoned" is what people say when they don't get that they're not owed a relationship, and think that being friends with women is a waste of time. Find friends. Be who you are, be genuine. That's the only way you'll find people who are genuinely interested in spending time with you and not some persona you've adopted. If you want an actual good match of a partner, it's more likely that a friend of yours will match you up with someone than you finding the one by going out like you're on the hunt.
Ive helped several Americans join me in my new home, from helping with first steps, picking up from the airport, getting cellphones set up, advice on how to get settled, introducing to new people etc. If they're leaving the US and moving them and their families across an ocean, they're more aligned with my preferred culture than the one we fled. I was met with nothing but acceptance and kindness when I reached out to locals when I was moving and as I arrived, so if anything, that's the culture I'm trying to assimilate into.
I don't mind. Any country that would ban me personally based on my beliefs is one I wouldn't want to be in anyway. Now if they'd ban people based on their country of origin, I think that's painting with too broad a brush. We can't trust all countries to use such nuance sometimes.