Why are we so afraid to admit the obvious?

[well named]

You're free to go through and point out what is false.

This part at least seems to be completely disingenuous. I haven't looked at the rest:

- Unindicted Obamagate co-conspirator Loretta Lynch calls for blood and death in the streets.[35]
​

... I see that candycorn already covered this, but that's clearly a misrepresentation of her comments.

"It has been people, individuals who have banded together, ordinary people who simply saw what needed to be done and came together and supported those ideals who have made the difference. They’ve marched, they’ve bled and yes, some of them died. This is hard. Every good thing is. We have done this before. We can do this again."​

It's a very obvious reference to the civil rights era, to the violence faced by civil rights protestors. It's obviously not a call for "blood and death in the streets".

 

[Tumblin Tumbleweed]

Given the spate of recent violence, the board is understandably abuzz with threads and comments about who is to "blame". And of course, each end is essentially putting 100% of the blame on the other end. Each end is laying out a long list of examples of violence, rhetoric and incitement by the other end.

Guess what? They're both right. Facts are facts.

I have a great deal of respect for the power of ideology. It can make people say and do insane things. It can absolutely blind a person to the obvious. But is it so strong that we'd rather see this country burn down than challenge our own tribe to stop the madness?

When the hate is flowing from both ends like water from a fire hose, does it really matter which end is "worse"?

What is so terrifying about just admitting the obvious?
.

A Trump supporter Sent packages through the mail that contained bombs. Another idiot was so enraged by the hysteria preached by the blob about the migrants heading northward that he shot a dozen people in Pittsburgh.

No dumbass. Both sides aren’t right.

Do you really need a list of all the acts of violence committed by leftists against conservatives over the past couple of years? It's quite lengthy.

Congratuations on proving the OP's point. You are a perfect example of the problem he is talking about.

So are you. BTW, Let's see that list.

Here you go, hack

Left-wing violence in the Trump era - Conservapedia

Pretty funny the way so many have jumped in to prove my point for me, y'know?


.

Respectfully, your OP doesn't seem to do very much to elevate the conversation beyond mere hand wringing. Rational people know there's an ideology problem in this country (moreso on this board). We used to treat politics like sporting teams, but even sports fans address weaknesses within their own favored teams. What we have become now is more like religion vs. religion.

 

[bendog]

No they just didn't let you get away with the sin of moderation towards the undefensible. You equated apples with oranges.

Feel free to elaborate at any time and in kind, further prove the OP's point.

Shouldn’t the OP be calling out his own tribe if he’s wanting others to do it? Or are you looking past the detail that he refuses to practice what he preaches?

I don't know if its all about calling out his tribe. He did try to equate Trump's rallies cries of "lock them up" and there are good white nationalists carrying torches and chanting anti-Semite crap in front of a synagogue to the responses from the left. Not to mention not calling out the proud boys incitements of riots in Portland, and comparing their instigation to Antifa's retaliation. Essentially, he contended there was no difference between violent provocation and violent retaliation.

Neither may be right, but they certainly are not comparable. And frankly when encountering a bully, You can't back down unless you want to encourage the bully. Now the best outcome is always to have a bunch of decent people join in confronting the bully and giving HIM THE OPTION of backing down before taking a beating, as opposed to having to take on a bully who is most likely stronger than you. Sometimes living to fight another day is the only possibility.

 

[bendog]

Many have pointed this out, but Republicans have been kicked around for decades by the media. Our politicians just sat there and took it, because they were afraid the media would destroy them. The anger has been simmering for quite some time, and we finally have a president who isn't afraid of the constant(90% negative) attacks. After getting kicked around for years, the media wants Trump and the republicans to stand down? Are you kidding me? Before Mac does a victory dance and says we are proving his point again, I think any rational person can see criticizing a political opponent is not inciting violence. Bombers, shooters, whatever, are responsible for their own actions. Mac, you are basically calling 90% of republicans extreme wingers. You couldn't be more wrong. Republican's have found their voice and no apologies are necessary. No one is condoning violence, put the wackos in jail. Just don't piss down my leg and tell me its raining.

They've been so abused .... for decades even. LOL

 

[DOTR]

Interesting. And I suppose on a political board, you will find real ideologues. I don't know about the right wingers, but some of the Democrat/lefties here are definitely not "seeing it."

Well, the right wingers will deny that anything has been done or said on their side that has contributed to this.

Anything.

They appear to be serious, sincere. Hence my point.
.

Rhetoric has always been there. Crazy people have always been there. Two are not necessarily equated. The Left has advocated for violence just as much as the GOP if not moreso.

Factually incorrect. I seem to have missed any Dem Presidential Nominee volunteering to pay the legal bills for those committing assault at their rallies.

Your mileage may vary

That was a joke. Obviously Leftists don't have a sense of humor. Did you miss HRC calling half the country a basket of deplorables. LOL. Or Maxine Waters or Eric Holder advocating direct violence and not apoligizing for it?

Half of Donny's supporters not half the country. And she was specific, the racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamaphobic are the one she called deplorable.

Yeah she only called a quarter of the country deplorable. Nice catch.

"You know, to just be grossly generalistic, you could put half of Trump’s supporters into what I call the basket of deplorables. Right?"

 

[DOTR]

Well, much appreciation to all those who jumped right in to illustrate the point of the thread.

"Huh? My side does something wrong? No way! Never! I don't see it! You can't prove it!

"But those OTHER guys, HERE'S what THEY do wrong...."


.

Again you assume neither side is right. On what do you base that on? Did it ever cross your mind that there is a right and a wrong?

That's not what I said.

This is about fundamental honesty. And indeed, lying is wrong.
.

Oh im sure lying is a horrific crime. maybe even worse than racism.

So when Kavanaugh was accused of sexual assault..and he denied it...what was the proper middle ground?

I don't know.

And that has nothing to do with the thread.
.

Then give a specific.

 

[Mac1958]

Well, much appreciation to all those who jumped right in to illustrate the point of the thread.

"Huh? My side does something wrong? No way! Never! I don't see it! You can't prove it!

"But those OTHER guys, HERE'S what THEY do wrong...."


.

Again you assume neither side is right. On what do you base that on? Did it ever cross your mind that there is a right and a wrong?

That's not what I said.

This is about fundamental honesty. And indeed, lying is wrong.
.

Oh im sure lying is a horrific crime. maybe even worse than racism.

So when Kavanaugh was accused of sexual assault..and he denied it...what was the proper middle ground?

I don't know.

And that has nothing to do with the thread.
.

Then give a specific.

A specific what?

The OP wasn't clear enough?
.

 

[Tumblin Tumbleweed]

Yes, there are plenty of examples of simple threats made from leftists, but according to you that's violence.

According to me? That is the narrative being pushed from all sides of the political landscape these days. Telling people to confront others? Violence. Protesting? Violence. Staging a mock execution? Violence. Calling out fascism? Violence. I see them as merely threats.

 

[candycorn]

No they just didn't let you get away with the sin of moderation towards the undefensible. You equated apples with oranges.

Feel free to elaborate at any time and in kind, further prove the OP's point.

Shouldn’t the OP be calling out his own tribe if he’s wanting others to do it? Or are you looking past the detail that he refuses to practice what he preaches?

I don't know if its all about calling out his tribe. He did try to equate Trump's rallies cries of "lock them up" and there are good white nationalists carrying torches and chanting anti-Semite crap in front of a synagogue to the responses from the left. Not to mention not calling out the proud boys incitements of riots in Portland, and comparing their instigation to Antifa's retaliation. Essentially, he contended there was no difference between violent provocation and violent retaliation.

Neither may be right, but they certainly are not comparable. And frankly when encountering a bully, You can't back down unless you want to encourage the bully. Now the best outcome is always to have a bunch of decent people join in confronting the bully and giving HIM THE OPTION of backing down before taking a beating, as opposed to having to take on a bully who is most likely stronger than you. Sometimes living to fight another day is the only possibility.

If the point of the op is to get others to do something, a good place to start is with the man in the mirror.

The politics and trump and Clinton and everything else is secondary. If you’re saying “you need to do x” and you’re not doing it yourself...you have zero standing to tell others anything.

 

[bendog]

No they just didn't let you get away with the sin of moderation towards the undefensible. You equated apples with oranges.

Feel free to elaborate at any time and in kind, further prove the OP's point.

Shouldn’t the OP be calling out his own tribe if he’s wanting others to do it? Or are you looking past the detail that he refuses to practice what he preaches?

I don't know if its all about calling out his tribe. He did try to equate Trump's rallies cries of "lock them up" and there are good white nationalists carrying torches and chanting anti-Semite crap in front of a synagogue to the responses from the left. Not to mention not calling out the proud boys incitements of riots in Portland, and comparing their instigation to Antifa's retaliation. Essentially, he contended there was no difference between violent provocation and violent retaliation.

Neither may be right, but they certainly are not comparable. And frankly when encountering a bully, You can't back down unless you want to encourage the bully. Now the best outcome is always to have a bunch of decent people join in confronting the bully and giving HIM THE OPTION of backing down before taking a beating, as opposed to having to take on a bully who is most likely stronger than you. Sometimes living to fight another day is the only possibility.

If the point of the op is to get others to do something, a good place to start is with the man in the mirror.

The politics and trump and Clinton and everything else is secondary. If you’re saying “you need to do x” and you’re not doing it yourself...you have zero standing to tell others anything.

That's it exactly. Trump says let's be civil, and then suggests we lock up Soros. Literally.

The op needs to give it up

 

[The Original Tree]

Only ONE PARTY preaches that THERE IS NO PLACE FOR CIVILITY IN POLITICS!

The DNC

Everything else is a reaction to that party's actions.

 

[DustyInfinity]

Many have pointed this out, but Republicans have been kicked around for decades by the media. Our politicians just sat there and took it, because they were afraid the media would destroy them. The anger has been simmering for quite some time, and we finally have a president who isn't afraid of the constant(90% negative) attacks. After getting kicked around for years, the media wants Trump and the republicans to stand down? Are you kidding me? Before Mac does a victory dance and says we are proving his point again, I think any rational person can see criticizing a political opponent is not inciting violence. Bombers, shooters, whatever, are responsible for their own actions. Mac, you are basically calling 90% of republicans extreme wingers. You couldn't be more wrong. Republican's have found their voice and no apologies are necessary. No one is condoning violence, put the wackos in jail. Just don't piss down my leg and tell me its raining.

They've been so abused .... for decades even. LOL

You guys took out Nixon. You took out Mcarthy. You tried to take out Kavennaugh, and are actively out to get Trump. Then you celebrate when Hillary, Obama, and anyone with a D after their name gets away scott free. Sorry to say the media and the democrats no longer have free reign to shape society in its image. You will never be able to force Americans to accept there are a hundred genders, that 'he' or 'she' is inappropriate, and all the rest of the bs. Your media stranglehold and power trip has been broken. I don't care if you deny its existence, or don't believe my anger. I'm far from the only one.

 

[Vastator]

What is so terrifying about just admitting the obvious?

Nothing. The obvious is that many are through compromising. That’s what got us here...

Yeah.
.

We’re a long way from there friend...

Yep, but that's a choice we've all made.

"They made me do it" is an excuse for children, but we seem to use it a lot.
.

I think most sides have given, and compromised their beliefs to the point where there is nothing left, that they are willing to give. In fact; after seeing the results of many others compromises... they’d like them undone as well.

 

[whitehall]

Democrats torched cars and smashed windows on inauguration day and at least one Hollywood celeb thought it was funny to hold a facsimile of the bloody severed head of the President of the United States for a photo op. Other Hollywood types threatened the President with everything from arson to assault and murder and still another Hollywood type thought it was a good idea to kidnap the children of the Press Secretary. A Sanders supporter democrat activist opened fire on a republican baseball team and although the FBI seems dumbfounded over the motive of the Vegas shooter, it seems that Stephen Paddock murdered 52 Americans because he was angry about a concert that the media dubbed a "Trump Rally". A Trump hater and notorious anti-Semite opened fire on a Jewish celebration. A career criminal sent suspicious packages to prominent democrats. Put it all together and the crazy left comes to the conclusion that "both parties are guilty". The dirty little secret is that democrats together with their minions in Hollywood and the mainstream media are solely guilty of fostering the hatred and insane anger that has erupted for the last two years.

 

[Mac1958]

Democrats torched cars and smashed windows on inauguration day and at least one Hollywood celeb thought it was funny to hold a facsimile of the bloody severed head of the President of the United States for a photo op. Other Hollywood types threatened the President with everything from arson to assault and murder and still another Hollywood type thought it was a good idea to kidnap the children of the Press Secretary. A Sanders supporter democrat activist opened fire on a republican baseball team and although the FBI seems dumbfounded over the motive of the Vegas shooter, it seems that Stephen Paddock murdered 52 Americans because he was angry about a concert that the media dubbed a "Trump Rally". A Trump hater and notorious anti-Semite opened fire on a Jewish celebration. A career criminal sent suspicious packages to prominent democrats. Put it all together and the crazy left comes to the conclusion that "both parties are guilty". The dirty little secret is that democrats together with their minions in Hollywood and the mainstream media are solely guilty of fostering the hatred and insane anger that has erupted for the last two years.

Okay, that's an indictment of the Left.

Now, what is the Right doing wrong? Perhaps you can provide some examples.
.

 

[Crixus]

McBeigh and Rudolph were white power people.

Militant White Nationalist. Ideologically not aligned with either Democrats or Republicans.

Ideologically aligned with the political views of the political left. As in Democrats, specifically the externally liberal ones .

 

[Dragonlady]

Given the spate of recent violence, the board is understandably abuzz with threads and comments about who is to "blame". And of course, each end is essentially putting 100% of the blame on the other end. Each end is laying out a long list of examples of violence, rhetoric and incitement by the other end.

Guess what? They're both right. Facts are facts.

I have a great deal of respect for the power of ideology. It can make people say and do insane things. It can absolutely blind a person to the obvious. But is it so strong that we'd rather see this country burn down than challenge our own tribe to stop the madness?

When the hate is flowing from both ends like water from a fire hose, does it really matter which end is "worse"?

What is so terrifying about just admitting the obvious?
.

Because one side is promoting violence and only condemns one side.....the other side (mine) condemns violence from anyone and does not promote it. so to fix the problem, you need to stop promoting violence and start condemning anyone who does it.....it's pretty clear who needs to do that (not my side, they already do that)

For example, actor Jame Cromwell just said if the dems don't win, there will be blood in the streets....Trump has never said anything close to that.....both sides are not the same.

James Cromwell is an actor. He isn’t a political leader, and I had to google him to find out who you meant.

Your side hasn’t condemned all forms of violence. Trump has consistently lied about Soros funding the Caravan of migrants and falsely accused Democrats of organizing and encouraging the Caravan. All of these accusations are lies.

Because of the lie that Jews are funding the caravan, one of the right wing lunatic fringe went to a Synagogue and murdered 11 people to “stop the invasion”.

One of Trumps’ most ardent supporters sent pipe bombs through the mail to shut down dissent and punish the “fake news”.

No both sides are not the same. One side gives aid and comfort to Nazis. Trump said all of the right things after the Tree of Life shooting, but then went to a rally and ranted about “fake news”, and called Democrats “mobs”.

None of that is true.

 

[jc456]

Subjective. Who is "racist" who is "sexist". What is Islamaphobia? Some dumbass Leftist definition. Phobia means FEAR. Like what you have with Trump. I am certainly not scared of radical Islam but I dislike it. Would you define me as "Islamaphobic"? Do tell?.

Of course all those terms are subjective, look at the crowd she was speaking to. So is the term deplorable. It seems to be a trigger of some kind, somehow, for some reason.

I can only give you my subjective opinion of what an Isalmaphobic. But what the point in that?

The point is labeling people as deplorable because they disagree with you politically is not optimal when running for office.

I think Trumpybear has said much worse about his political opposition.

Not about the prospective voters. Apples and oranges.

65 million voted Democrat in 2016. President "Corleone" calls Democrat Evil. Over half the voter in the country are in league with Evil. But you guys have "Deplorable" on your side to hold onto.

Evil? Post that quote

 

[jc456]

Given the spate of recent violence, the board is understandably abuzz with threads and comments about who is to "blame". And of course, each end is essentially putting 100% of the blame on the other end. Each end is laying out a long list of examples of violence, rhetoric and incitement by the other end.

Guess what? They're both right. Facts are facts.

I have a great deal of respect for the power of ideology. It can make people say and do insane things. It can absolutely blind a person to the obvious. But is it so strong that we'd rather see this country burn down than challenge our own tribe to stop the madness?

When the hate is flowing from both ends like water from a fire hose, does it really matter which end is "worse"?

What is so terrifying about just admitting the obvious?
.

Because one side is promoting violence and only condemns one side.....the other side (mine) condemns violence from anyone and does not promote it. so to fix the problem, you need to stop promoting violence and start condemning anyone who does it.....it's pretty clear who needs to do that (not my side, they already do that)

For example, actor Jame Cromwell just said if the dems don't win, there will be blood in the streets....Trump has never said anything close to that.....both sides are not the same.

James Cromwell is an actor. He isn’t a political leader, and I had to google him to find out who you meant.

Your side hasn’t condemned all forms of violence. Trump has consistently lied about Soros funding the Caravan of migrants and falsely accused Democrats of organizing and encouraging the Caravan. All of these accusations are lies.

Because of the lie that Jews are funding the caravan, one of the right wing lunatic fringe went to a Synagogue and murdered 11 people to “stop the invasion”.

One of Trumps’ most ardent supporters sent pipe bombs through the mail to shut down dissent and punish the “fake news”.

No both sides are not the same. One side gives aid and comfort to Nazis. Trump said all of the right things after the Tree of Life shooting, but then went to a rally and ranted about “fake news”, and called Democrats “mobs”.

None of that is true.

I condemn all violence. I don’t condemn defense of ones life!

 

[jc456]

No thinking person is at the point of violent action vis-a-vis the present state of domestic politics. It is facile, it is childish, it is ridiculous, it is self-re-enforcing, it is boring, but no one with a mind considers physical confrontation an option in the current situation.

Six days ago, Cruz was laughing when someone chanted about O'Rourke Lock him up. Four days ago, Trump LED a chant at a rally referencing Soros "Lock him up." AFTER Soros was targeted with a bomb.
Donald Trump repeats "lock him up" chant about George Soros minutes after calling for unity around attempted bombings

why would anyone rationally be upset with Neilsen or McConnell being shouted out at restaurants or even having their food dumped?

Of course it's churlish behavior. But don't for a minute think the dems started this.

Do you know what lock up means? Explain how that’s violence