A communist named after an OG politburo member has the balls to claim moral high ground in wishing ill on someone? Get the fuck out of here
@Trotsky
Damn, man, you been saving that brilliant burn since you saw my username 4 years ago or what?
And, yes, Leon Trotsky gave up a charmed life as a cosmopolitan renaissance man to risk his life devoting himself to ending the brutal, tyrannical repression of innocent people by a hereditary monarchy. He risked his life, was imprisoned, was exiled to Siberia, and was banished from his home. His time is power wasn't perfect, and he wasn't blameless for that, and the Soviet system did not reach any of his aspirations for it and ended up mimicking some of the same tyranny that it displaced. But he was well-intentioned.
Rush, on the other hand, sat his sweaty ass in a cushy chair and raked in millions of dollars by knowingly spreading lies with
absolutely no purpose whatsoever than to enrich himself: not to improve the lives of anyone, not to improve his country, not to make the world more equal, fair, or happy.
You're right they are not comparable, the actions of the likes of the Clintons have had far worse impact on the world than Rush's actions. The Libya intervention alone, which Clinton was the architect of and which Obama approved, has generated more misery and death than Rush entire career multiplied by a thousand.
Clinton wasn't the architect of Libya. She just charmed Obama to join in it. Also, Rush was a preeminent propagandist for the Gulf War, the Iraq invasion, the War on Terror, defended and even praised the use of torture under George W. Bush. Of course, you can make the argument that any person in power (literally any president ever) has more blood on their hands than any non-government official. But, in the case of Clinton vs. Rush, I don't think it's remotely close in a matter of balancing considerations: Clinton consistently throughout her career had good faith bases for her policies. Rush did not.