J.C.MacSwell

If you would like to assume that in the US the right and left extremes or political climate can't get worse, good luck with your discussion. Not really. Was there a significant change around 40 years ago? Or is it constantly changing?

It has. The numbers are in the high 10's of millions OF deaths in the 20th century alone, with the left being responsible for the majority.

Obviously the extreme right is primarily to blame for the rise in right wing hate groups, and right wing hate crimes. As this includes the majority of hate crimes, they would be more to blame. I do blame both extremes fairly equally for the current political climate, but I don't blame just the extremes. Ultimately, as history has shown, both extremes can be equally dangerous.

I replied to that. Obviously the blame goes to the perpetrator. Although he was a Bernie Sanders supporter, I don't blame Sanders. I do somewhat blame the dangerous political climate as per topic, and for that I blame everyone on both sides, from Trump on down, but no one in particular. (Trump would be an exception due to his position and personality. He's clearly more a symptom than a leader, but he is both) I certainly did not, and do not, blame liberals more than any other group. If anything I blame the left and right extremes, but there is a lot of blame to share around.

No. Ten oz brought it up. He felt the need to claim I had misrepresented it. I hadn't. No.

Everyone else here knows what a straw man is. Don't pat yourself on the back for refuting your own suggestion. You might start hurting yourself in your exuberance Political Forum on American politics circa 2019...

We aren't the straw men you seem to desire. Try being accurate. The claim was with regard to Bookers call to harass Republican Senators. Something that was already going on at that point in time. If you can't base your argument on what is actually stated...maybe you need a better argument? Because the one you are using frankly does not fit. The fact Booker called for "in your face" harassment of Republican Senators is a fact...the suggestion that any protest by liberals is an unruly mob is a confabulation...by you...it's clearly not true, so why suggest it here?

Allow me to rephrase. He tried to incite a lot of people to get in the faces of Republican Senators and shout at them in an unruly manner. Fair?

Was. It was one particular incident. I did not bring it up in this thread. Ten oz did, and made the claim that Booker qualified it in the same speech to be nothing illegal or violent (I am pretty sure that was not the case, but would be more than happy to be corrected, as it would make me feel less malice was intended by Booker) Booker was trying to incite mob protest, for political motivations. It was reckless, but not an explicit call to violence, never mind terrorism. I don't expect to see the same from him during his run for POTUS. Maybe it's wishful thinking, but I think he is both better and smarter than that. But that doesn't change the fact that he did what he did. Could you drop the personal attacks? Thanks.

In the link I gave the perpetrator was a Bernie Sanders supporter. Are you suggesting some blame should go to him?

Ten oz brought up Holder and Booker. I made sure to not equate their divisive, and in Booker's case inciteful, rhetoric with actual terrorist violence, or even suggest a call for it.

I claimed he was inciting others to harass. He suggested others should "get in the faces" of Republican Senators. If you equate this fact to advocating violence, then why are you claiming he wasn't? Ten oz seemed to suggest that I attacked Booker by my pointing out the fact that he had made a call to harass Republican Senators, and that maybe some self reflection was in order for my having done so...given the fact that Booker himself had been the recipient of a violent threat. I don't know how else to interpret it, but did ask for clarification.

Holder did. (it didn't absolve him of inciteful rhetoric, but at least he qualified it later in his speech) I'm pretty sure Booker didn't. Please correct me if I am wrong. Let me get this straight. You think I should not bring up any negative facts or opinions I have on Booker, because he was the recipient of a mail bomb? Can I not condemn the mail bomb and, quite separately (as I make no connection), express my views? Booker is currently trying to become the next POTUS. His receiving any threat of violence is abominable. That might get him deserved sympathy, but it does not give him a pass.

Booker and Holder called for the harassment of Republican Senators. Justify it as you like, but don't claim I misrepresented it. Sayoc sent pipe bombs in the mail. No where did I claim Booker or Holder were advocates of that level of violence. As usual, it is not all or none. More Americans need to recognize that in their speech. Based on that as I read it I wouldn't say it should be excluded. I see that as quite different from can I "link this attack to rhetoric coming from politicians", that I replied no to. The nut jobs are the danger. No reasonable person is going to run out and kill someone based on current political rhetoric. Does Cesar Sayoc not fit your definition of a "nut job"?

No. Very indirectly in the form of heightening political discord to levels that would be dangerous at either extreme. This one just happened to be an attack on Republicans.

I know an attack on Republicans doesn't fit your narrative, but does this not count? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2017_Congressional_baseball_shooting Both sides should be a lot more careful in there speech, IMO. First and foremost Trump, but nether side gets excused.

With reference to Shapiro's arguments in your link, is he not basing his arguments on those with XY or XX only, and not based on denying that there are exceptions?

Unlike Shultz, Sanders has a shot at winning the Democrat ticket. Also if he ran as an independent would he not draw votes more from the Democrats than Schultz would?

I had a teacher who claimed he was a member of the flat earth society back in the seventies. He was our history prof in grade eight so it was fair game for him. You could tell didn't believe it, but he would not admit it. He would admit you had a good argument based on what you had been taught, and deflect to another angle. My understanding at that time was it was a game, and good to argue either side, which of course we started to do. The game in part became how long you could maintain you were serious. If they didn't drain, we'd be in big trouble. Do you not realize how much rain falls on the oceans each day? (and let's not get started on that equal evaporation myth) etc. etc. All in fun.

I wonder how they would look if each "news" source had their own version??

"No sign of organic life here, past or present...finally we Robots of the Enlightenment have proof that we were divinely conceived, not created by some decrepit form of "evolved life" like so many of our robot scientists claim"

Thank you.

You took exception to my claim. Clearly even though you have the grasp to understand that it was correct. If I had claimed "of those that have entered the race, O'Rourke is one of the favourites" you would have a point. You know better, yet persist on denying and objecting to the claim I made, despite knowing it is true. You might ask yourself why you do this, rather than accuse me of belabouring it endlessly.

His odds of entering the race are far from zero...so given that...his odds are not zero. If Harris drops out, her odds are zero, but even though that is a possibility her odds are not zero at this point. Is this that difficult to understand?

Why can you simply not accept that he is one of those favoured? Is it such a big deal to take a balanced position? Not the most favoured, but second only to Harris, and ahead of both Warren and Booker here: https://www.oddsshark.com/other/2020-usa-presidential-odds-futures It's not all or none at this point.