I have never been able to understand the conservative mind and its inability to process context.

Part of the issue is age. The younger the kid, the less they should be attacked.

For instance, Rush Limbaugh called Chelsea Clinton "the White House dog" purely to ridicule her appearance. The right attacked Gus Walz for being a "weird beta male" because he was crying and proud of his father. Hopefully we can agree these are truly reprehensible and there is no context under which calling a 12-year-old girl ugly on a national radio show or ridiculing a teenage boy for crying could be considered acceptable behavior, yes?

But notice how rarely Democrats put their kids forward in political sense. They aren't really part of the campaign, they don't have policy roles, etc.

Now consider Tr*mp's kids: they were deeply involved and therefore open to any and all attacks. The only one who wasn't was Baron, and the primary reaction on the left was sympathy for having to grow up in that family.

What got the Bush and Palin kids in the news was hypocrisy, not living up to the standards their parents wanted to inflict on the rest of us. Palin's whole family was kinda crazy, like Lauren Boebert's. During a giant national fight over premarital sex and abstinence-only education, her daughter got pregnant. Surely you can admit that was the kind of thing that will stir up political issues.

It's not just that context is important, it's that nothing can be understood without it. It's the primary problem with "bothsidesism." Two things can't be compared without considering the context. Technically, the Clintons and the Palins each had a daughter attacked. Both sides do it, so it's equal, right? No, it's not.