rangerx

No, it's not healthy. No, because most conservatives fail to acknowledge it's even an issue and those who do fail to address it by needlessly shifting blame. It' speaks volumes when some people think a person like me, an anonymous foreign contributor on a public forum group be held to a higher standard than a wannabe dictator who incites terror, violence, racism and division among his own people. Willfully ignorant and spitefully sacrificial is what that is. There used to be a time when conservatives would say "better dead than red", but now they jumped into bed with the Russians, because it means owning the libs and little else. It would be laughable, if it wasn't so pathetic and tragic. I'm sure Reagan rolled over in his grave. It's all about personal gain, but little does he realize that after his tenure is done, he'll either be dead, in jail or broke. Like the university, steaks, vodka and casinos, the Trump brand is near dead. It's been that way a while, barely on life support by quid pro quo Russian financing. Anyone who thinks Russia gives something for nothing is an idiot.

I was talking about the baseball shooting. Other than painting liberals with a wide brush, you've yet to substantiate it to the OP who and what incited that incident.

I suppose it's germane to the discussion in one sense though, that any excuse will be made to distract from the underlying issue. It's the age old tactic of making an molehill of a mountain by making an a mountain of a molehill.

Oh bullshit. In pretty much every thread you'll default to an underhanded tactic to toss out the "leftist tactic" or other nonsense to dismiss other's comments when YOU were the one that brought them up in the first place. The irony in your assertion is off the scale. We are two pages into this and you've effectively derailed this into yet another one of your off topic claims and projections.

Because you have underlain your comments with it. I refuted it. Make cringe worthy comments, you'll draw comments. But no, instead you'd rather censor me, even blame me for what you say. Fail. Bait and switch BS Then of course, there's your usual MO of opening with an assertion before even making your point. As though the OP (and the author) are a false narrative. The Booker example is grasping at straws and little else. A false narrative. A false equivalent.

You're a sockpuppet of who now?

It's true, it did exist already. Stemming from broad interpretations of things like 1st and 2nd amendment issues (for example), but this new brand is based around Trump's rhetoric itself. Couple that with his total silence on the matter (at least up to this point). As the supposed leader, he's setting the example that domestic terror is not even worthy of a public comment.

Nor do the majority of his followers, even though Trump is the root cause for a new brand of domestic terrorism. Heaven forbid it would be the second cousin of a brother-in-law who happened to speak to someone once who was in business with a Muslim, they'd be screaming from the rooftops. Trump throws the T-word out in his wall rhetoric, travel bans, trade wars, energy policies et al, yet when it comes to white supremacy or homegrown hate, nary a peep. Even though public officials and journalists were targeted for terror, there's no additional charges at this time. As it stands, America has hamstrung itself by it's own inability to recognize, no less deal with domestic terrorism. That's very troubling. Truth what? Your truth that any protest by liberals is an unruly mob?

Unruly is a stretch, no less a call to violence (that's being harped incessantly by republicans). A totally fake assertion that gets a free pass from you, lest you'd have mentioned it. By your own admission, Booker is introspective yet you've still managed to frame him as insidious to the OP in the same breath. Republicans by and large, have zero introspect, nada contrition and zilcho accountability for the incitement that caused a Coast Guard officer to amass an arsenal of weapons and a plot to kill liberal politicians and objective journalists. Like I said, even if Booker dropped dead, republicans would not change their position on the matter one iota.

Mob protest? That's little more than an over the top politically charged talking point that rolls off your tongue at every turn, yet you have the audacity to tell everyone else to tone it down?

You may not have said in those terms, but you continue to suggest Booker is inciting something untoward to counter the discussion. If that were true, just exactly what is it he's supposedly inciting. Protest? Anti-patriotism? You did however bring up the baseball shooting, which was done in total absence of rhetorical indoctrination as though it was. Even if Booker dropped dead before morning, Trump and his minions would still be doing the same thing and your ilk would silent as the crypt. It's only because liberals were implicated in some minuscule way that you'd mention it at all.

So how many people stocked up an arsenal, mailed bombs or attacked media outlets based on Booker's rhetoric? Equating protest (which is a constitutional right) to terrorist violence is seriously f'd up, dude.

No, that's not what was said at all. In fact nobody suggested it. It's the false equivalency to detract from the underlying issue and the bogus assertion you're being censored that's objectionable.

Especially when a so-called president calls the media "an enemy of the people", it's no surprise that partisan malcontents will take up arms.

I gathered that, but it certainly gets to the heart of the matter. Decency and decorum isn't lost on the average American, but the sheer volume of rhetoric and propaganda undermining those things is epidemic. Although not a resource thing, it's a tragedy of the commons nonetheless.

Freedom of speech is not unique to America. IT works in most countries because as a society, it's framed around decency and respect for other opinions. In America it's been perverted and weaponized to serve self interest, not the community at large.

It's the MO of the preppers and survivalists. Sadly, this dude is not the only one with a stash and is willing to use it. And on the other point, a free press is the cornerstone of any democracy, but when truthful reporting is branded as fake and fake news is upheld as true, democracy goes out the window.

It's the "socialist" gaslight the right has fired up for itself to marginalize any liberal or liberal policy. They're going to parrot it ad nauseam for the next two years. Mark my words.

Exactly. The playfield isn't level. Using steroids while expecting moderates train at super human levels.

Gerrymandering and voter suppression is easier, though. Once that's done, there's no incentive or obligation to make good on promises to the electorate, just the donors.

The moderate position on abortion is to accept the personal therapeutic needs for it and not needlessly over-burden the social welfare system. Two things that conservatives scream from the rooftops on pretty much every other issue. The US has removed itself from the Paris Accord while continuing to be among the greater contributors to the cause. The incentive to find way back in certainly won't come from republicans any time soon. You're pro carbon tax in one comment, but against on another? But to get to the point, my response was directed at deniers, not you personally.

So government control over women's bodies as incubators for the state, then? How does one strike a balance with a group that denies something exists? What ever happened to the concept of polluter pays? The reality is, even a person who consciously does not own a vehicle, they're still on the hook for the transportation system that delivers their food and goods or the public systems they ride. The only fair way is directly applying a carbon tax on fuel usage. Lets be honest here, climate deniers would rather close a school, take meds from a senior or drill oil in a park than pay their fair share.

But Hillary had 3 classified notes on her personal email server that the Russians might have been able to access, yet Republicans called to lock her up. To a republican, the threat of something is worse than the act of the same, apparently.

In the case of Nixon and Watergate, it was the Republicans who finally put their foot down and insisted he resign. That could happen now, but sitting Republicans cower entrenched in self interest and accept no responsibility for anything whilst pointing fingers at everyone else. All distraction, zero resolution.

That's what happens when a third party runs on a divisive platform. You get what you vote for. In America, a something-for-all policy is viewed as socialism. People are so entrenched by party lines, it's practically an act of war to oppose. The current cycle demonstrates conservatives would rather have a corrupt New York liberal who identifies as a conservative that secretly consorts with Russians because it means not having a liberal POTUS. Sadly, the debate "the party or the man" is totally lost on most Americans. We used to be a two party system in Canada. It wasn't until the 1950's when the CCF ( today's New Democratic Party) came to be on a policy of universal health care. Even the most partisan factions up here rarely run on an anti-healthcare, anti-abortion or racist platforms, because they know it's political suicide.