“When they go low, we go high.”
Upthread, I confess I was being sarcastic hen I called out the “monstrous” but non-criminal actions of a restaurateur, but I see that at least one right-winger in the thread has taken up that standard and wonders why prominent Democrats don’t condemn the restaurateur.
May I ask if they will condemn the hypocrisies of Trey Gowdy and others? Do they condemn the child abuse Trump has engaged in, hoping to gain political leverage at the expense of innocent children?
What do we all think of Sean Hannity’s call for Republican aides worried about a subpoena or search warrant to erase their hard disks and smash their cellphones? IANAL; is destroying evidence a felony or misdemeanor? Is Hannity’s incitment of a crime itself a crime?
What do you think about this, Silver? Hurricane? Is criminal destruction of evidence justified to save your righteous patriots from the over-reaches of the Deep State?
Perhaps they should wipe their hard drives, like, with a cloth.
Regards,
Shodan
We libruls are ready and willing to work together with conservatives, anytime, anywhere, to reduce the opportunities for the crazies on either side to gun down people on the other side. Let’s work together to get that semi-auto ban in place.
Do you think political violence is a bigger problem for one side than the other?
Exactly, one restaurateur denying service is nothing compared to abortion clinic bombings, racists attacks, bigotry and violence.
I find it odd that now the GOP is calling for civility, when they’ve been mocking civility for the past 30 years and calling it political correctness.
I have yet to form an opinion on the matter of which side is worse. I think both sides have their fringes that engage in violence occasionally, to all our misfortune. Trying to tally up the score for each side and decide who has a bigger problem would probably turn into a parlor game where each side used definitions and time periods examined to include / exclude bad acts by each side in an attempt to paint the other side as worse.
Let’s see: Hillary made a joke about a single machine over which she had control. If she really wanted to advise herself to “clean” it, she could have done so addressing a mirror in privacy.
Hannity is a leading intellectual and strategist for an entire gang of crooks, talking with the Prez daily, who serves as a wide-band play-caller from his TV studio; he urged Trumpists to destroy evidence, which is a criminal offense under 18 U.S. Code § 1519, punishable by up to 20 years imprisonment.
Yep. The two things are exactly the same! :rolleyes:
Sounds like you think that we shouldn’t ask some questions because you don’t like finger-pointing. Or, less charitably, that you don’t want to consider the question because you may not like the answer.
I don’t mind if people ask questions. I don’t even mind finger-pointing, I just don’t think it’s going to lead to any sort of a consensus.
No, they aren’t at all the same. One is a former Presidential candidate, and Secretary of State, whose cronies destroyed evidence under subpoena and lied about it. The other is a talk show host.
Regards,
Shodan
I see that once again what Trump touches, dies. It may not had been him originally but it is what he said recently what many on the right are still going for.
Here’s what the Government Accountability Office found regarding domestic terrorism:
That’s through April 2017. With those stats from a respected, non-partisan agency, I just can’t see what is open to interpretation or lack of consensus. The facts seem abundantly clear.
This is not to say that mainstream Republicans are violent killers. It’s that one cannot argue with a straight face that left-wing and right-wing extremist violence are in any way comparable problems.
ETA: and of course, if you back up to the 1970s, its clear that leftist extremists were far, far more active than today. But in the recent couple decades, there really isn’t any misunderstanding which extremists are responsible for politically-motivated violence.
I think I found your issue (or at least one of them):
START is excluding attacks by black extremists or other violent leftists. Even if the recent baseball shooter had succeeded in killing someone, it doesn’t appear they would have counted his political violence as “far left” because, AFAIK, his motivation wasn’t “animal rights or the environment”. Does that seem odd to you?
So, just as a WAG, do you think including broader measures of left-wing extremists would result in studies that find that the levels of violence exhibited by such groups would be generally comparable to those attributed to right wing extremists? I mean, just as a ballpark sort of guess.
Well, then, here’s your opportunity to list all those attacks by “black extremists and other violent leftists”. Keep it concise, no more than a couple pages should do the trick.
I don’t know, maybe. I suspect they’re within an order of magnitude of each other at a minimum. At the very least, there’s enough doubt there that I wouldn’t feel comfortable declaring “I just can’t see what is open to interpretation or lack of consensus. The facts seem abundantly clear.”
I think I found your issue. You must have thought the word “including” was “only”. Simple mistake, I’m sure.
Over a year later, you’re still going on and on about “violent leftists” and “ANTIFA!!!” with no body count, or even a situation like the recent one where a man “counter-protested”, got in an argument with a protester, pulled a gun, and threatened to kill everyone there.
So here is the source data, which is very easily sorted into any way you want to slice and dice it. Profiles of Individual Radicalization in the United States - PIRUS (Keshif) | START.umd.edu
The data examine nearly 1,900 domestic terrorists. Of that number, 746 are described as far right, 457 as Islamist, 340 as “single issue” (more on that in a moment), and 324 as far left. Of those that successfully carried out a plot of any kind, or attempted to carry out a plot of any kind, 284 were attributable to far right and 157 to far left. Of those 284 plots engaged in by the far right, 90% were of a violent nature. Of the 157 from the far left, just over half were violent. That’s pretty notable right there.
Of indidivudals who were just kind of dicking around, either not doing much actively or just collecting materials and whatnot, the right wingers were about ten times more likely to be considered violent than then left wing counterparts
Now, of single issue terrorists, an awful lot were carried out by individuals with no particular affiliation. But of those that were affiliated, frankly I think we could easily associate them with right or left wing causes, minus a few close calls. There’s a couple of leftist Puerto Rican groups in there, but more of the numbers tend to below to groups like the reactionary Jewish Defense League and the Christian exremist Army of God. To set your mind at ease, you can find the Black Panthers and the Montana Freemen here, too.
Feel free to play around with the data. But there’s a completely clear theme through all the data: the right wing extremists are more numerous and more violent than their left-wing counterparts, with no bones about it.
I contend that no open-minded person can look at the data and come to any different conclusion.
ETA: And by the way, do you consider “an order of magnitude” to be a roughly close approximation of two things?
(emphasis mine)
Yes, but only secession would do it. Two reasons. The first is that secession would placate any fear that white people inevitably losing majority status in the country. That alone will be a soothing unguent. Second, secession would allow white folk to carve out their territory among States (that minorities don’t want to go anyway). It can be like the experiment in Leith, SD but much bigger.
Russia exploited a flaw in this American experiment: white folks unquenchable hatred of people of color (especially blacks) and immigrants. I think Pool Patrol Paula (Permit Patty, BBQ Becky, etc etc) is evidence that white folks have lost their mind or in the process of losing it. White folks have abandoned the age-old tools of facts, fairness, and evidence to wander into the dark forests of whataboutism and equivocation. White folks don’t even speak a language anymore, they use words like “liberty, freedom, or common-sense” to describe what should be important policy prescriptions. Finally, white folks (white liberals included) have, for the most part, abandoned the tenets of empathy and compassion to worship at the altar of individualism.
The jokes are all on the white liberals, though. Poor things don’t know that after white folks come after immigrants and minorities, their political opponents (white liberals) are next on the chopping block. Just ask Jane Sanders. The shot across the bow? White folk just crushed unions like a beetle beneath their boot. The impetus has nothing to do with first amendment protections and had everything to do with the political affiliation of most unions. We know this because in many municipalities, white folks deliberately exempt their military arm from Right to Work laws. This is because the military arm of white folks are - surprise, surprise - predominately white, male, and conservative.