Looking at that list it shows Christchurch and El Paso as “right wing” even though they were eco-fascists:
Also did a search for “connor betts” and he did not show up in Wikipedia on any left wing terrorism lists. Of course the leftists at Wikipedia are not going to allow a list of left wing terrorism.
@agzem Firstly, you asked for a cite, and I gave one, then you asked for a cite again.
As far as I can tell your argument now is simply “whatabout” since you haven’t provided any alternative list of mass shootings or homicides.
Connor Betts was someone with Leftist views, but there is no evidence that they were a motivation for his mass shooting. When we look at right-wing extremists we look for actual evidence that these views were mentioned as a reason for the attack…otherwise, the list of right wing extremist shootings would be far more massive even than it is.
Firstly, any evidence of that? Secondly, who specified Wikipedia? Does any such list of left-wing extremist killings in the US exist?
Last I saw, Wikipedia was open source. Compile a list and create or edit a page yourself.
Or is this another case of, “It disagrees with my worldview so it must be leftist.”
I don’t see it so much as Democrats being the good guys (which we are) but rather Democrats being the adults. Republicans get to offer simple solutions with no demands that they show their work, Democrats are somehow required to prove that their policies work.
On coal mining- Democrats realize that the economics and environmental concerns have made coal much less needed or desired. Republicans simply promise that those jobs magically come back if we just gut environmental regulations.
On immigration- Democrats realize that immigrants are needed and productive, Republicans just appeal to white racism by promising to prevent people who don’t look like us or pray like us to enter the country.
On taxation- Republicans get to say “Yes there is a free lunch and we’re going to eat it” and campaign on endless tax cuts. As long as a wealthy person pays a nickel in taxes, they will not stop. Democrats on the other hand are asked to prove how their new social program, no matter how modest, will be paid for.
Democrats realize that people of all faiths or no faith are welcome in the US, Republicans are still whining about public schools not forcing students to say Christian prayers.
Democrats realize that racism and police abuse of power are huge problems that must be addressed, Republicans just whine about how athletes dare not stand for the national anthem in protest of racism and police abuse of power.
And so on and on. Republicans merely have to pander to the worst, most racist, most selfish instincts of the population while Democrats have to offer solutions.
So I checked your two links.
The first one was about anti-muslim, anti-immigrant, white nationalists who also happened to be pro-environment. Not exactly what I would call left wing. The Newsweek article was more about the skewed priorities of the Trump administration rather that any sudden threat posed by these groups.
So in other words your links basically show the opposite of what you are trying to show.
This analogy nails it. And since humans (like all animals) are wired to prefer easy satisfaction, the party offering it will always have a huge advantage.
The Democrats are also the more inclusive party; they directly represent the more diversified needs of the entire electorate. They tend to be better advocates for fairer economic policies that benefit the needs of everyone, including people who don’t have a lot of political or economic power. Republicans represent the ethnic majority, and in doing so, they also represent the status quo.
As someone who has been a registered Republican for twenty or thirty years - - and now holds almost exclusively progressive ideals, I can say THIS is the basis of the issue.
Except it goes a little further, when those rugged individuals are herded together and told what the “others” are planning (and never in a flattering manner), they quickly resort to group think. Their fear as individuals is puny compared to the institutional fear that builds when they face an organized group, say a political party that is willing to try new and different ideas and concepts. Everything, EVERYTHING is a slippery slope to destruction from a conservative point of view.
They want to Conserve the status quo. Unfortunately, they want to conserve a status that never existed except in their re-visionary collective memory. But it is urgent to them that no new thing be tried because that just hastens the inevitable slide into godless destruction.
This week I have had the ‘opportunity’ to visit with many I had lost touch with over the years. Once I heard them discuss the world I was not surprised we had drifted apart. All three households mentioned how Joe Biden, JOE BIDEN!! is a hard core Socialist who was going to let the even more communistic Bernie Sanders and AOC run the country if elected. They were sincerely dead serious. (These three households do no know each other, they are not sharing notes after class – they all have the same source of information however.)
In my experience they are driven by fear, and further they all believe things are usually worse than you know. Every one of these people believed legalizing gay marriage would lead to registered Democrats marrying their horse or cat. One even suggested I marry my nephew (whom I raised) so I could pass on my estate to him tax free. (He grossly overestimated my estate.) They all believe the Democratic Party has a secret agenda to take away their guns – with a very specific plan that starts with taking the Executive and Legislative branches of government.
They hate everything new because they fear everything outside their very limited experience. (The ones I happen to know also HATE to read anything except GUNS & AMMO. Every time I suggest they read a specific book, they respond they have the one book that matters and their pastor tells them stories from it every week!) So, uninformed and frightened – everything you want in an electorate.
He just provided it.
But here’s more:
Since 2010, every single internal terrorist attack have been perpetuated by Right wing attackers.
The United States faces a growing terrorism problem that will likely worsen over the next year. Based on a CSIS data set of terrorist incidents, the most significant threat likely comes from white supremacists, though anarchists and religious extremists inspired by the Islamic State and al-Qaeda could present a potential threat as well. Over the rest of 2020, the terrorist threat in the United States will likely rise based on several factors, including the November 2020 presidential election.
https://www.ncjrs.gov/App/Publications/abstract.aspx?ID=193484
. Right-wing extremism contains the largest assortment of groups and poses the greatest threat today. The “Far Right” represents probably the largest collection of domestic violent extremist groups in the country.
Despite President Donald Trump‘s claims that leftist groups are causing violence, new research has found that there have been zero deaths attributed to such groups while white supremacists and right-wing extremists have killed and harmed dozens of people over the past 25 years, according to mic . Based on findings from the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS), “in 14 of the 21 years between 1994 and 2019 in which fatal terrorist attacks occurred, the majority of deaths resulted from right-wing attacks. In eight of these years, right-wing attackers caused all of the fatalities, and in three more—including 2018 and 2019—they were responsible for more than 90 percent of annual fatalities. Therefore, while religious terrorists caused the largest number of total fatalities, right-wing attackers were most likely to cause more deaths in a given year.”
Sounds great in theory…but liberal moderators will delete it. Here’s an example:
Oh not that again…they refuse to provide their data. Nobody should be citing that study. It’s obvious that the data doesn’t match their claims.
No, they dont- it’s right there.
And we give you cite after cite and all you can do is feeble attacks on the cites.
Post a link to the 893 terrorist plots they claim to have “studied”
Now Wikipedia is the Liberal Media too? So it’s not actually “anyone can edit” but “only Liberals may edit”?
I did not get that memo.
I loved the responses from @BobLibDem and @Temporary_Name.
There’s also this:
A study by scientists at New York University and the University of California, Los Angeles, found differences in how self-described liberal and conservative research participants responded to changes in patterns.
Participants were asked to tap a keyboard when the letter “M” appeared on a computer monitor and to refrain from tapping when they saw a “W.” The letter “M” appeared four times more frequently than “W,” conditioning participants to press the keyboard on almost every trial.
Liberal participants made fewer mistakes than conservatives when they saw the rare “W,” indicating to the researchers that these participants were better able to accept changes or conflicts in established patterns.
The participants were also wired to an electroencephalograph that recorded activity in their anterior cingulate cortex, the part of the brain that detects conflicts between a habitual tendency and a more appropriate response. Liberals were significantly more likely than conservatives to show activity in the brain circuits that deal with conflicts during the experiment, and this correlated with their greater accuracy in the test.
Conservatives – particularly “social conservatives --” are horribly uncomfortable with this kind of change – the kind of societal change that’s been going on since fire and the wheel hit the scene. They cling to the constancy and stability of the Bible, for example, and decry every single thing that – in their view – differs from it, because … anything other than what THEY view as the Bible’s position … hits them like an “M” on the computer monitor.
Every single thing that’s happened since 1776 has had some Conservative screaming that that day marked the swift decline into tyranny, anarchy, debauchery, or the end of civilization as we know it.
One day … maybe … just maybe they’ll be right 
Wikipedia co-founder:
"… Examples have become embarrassingly easy to find. The Barack Obama article completely fails to mention many well-known scandals: Benghazi, the IRS scandal, the AP phone records scandal, and Fast and Furious, to say nothing of Solyndra or the Hillary Clinton email server scandal"
Really? Did you try clicking on the green box that said “Download the Brief”? Did you scroll to the end notes on pages 9 and 10? Did you further notice the link entitled “For an overview of the methodology used in compiling the data set, please see here,” on page 8?
No? Didn’t think so. Didn’t expect you would.
The “brief” is just a PDF version of what I am already reading on that page. “Methodology” is not data. Where’s the data? They engage in a lot of smoke and mirror tactics to hide the fact that they refuse to provide the data.