kurtster wrote: 
You bit at the personal attack, when it's not really the topic.

What about the real issues that were brought up earlier? The state of the GOP, the nature of the President and his relationship to all Americans - not just the minority that supports him. How has he made the country great again, when multiple foreign leaders openly mock him?

 islander wrote: 
This has sat out in the open for 24 hours.  You realize what you state above and have no second thoughts about it.  A nice accomplishment to stop this thread in its tracks for 24 hours.

There has been no rebuttal to your post so it is safe to conclude that you are in fact the sole judge, jury and executioner for rational thought here at RP and speak for everyone.  Everything posted by everyone else in this thread is indeed rational and meets your approval.

I just wanted to immortalize your post so you couldn't delete it or modify it later.  Speaks volumes regarding the current state of political discourse we have.

May I suggest your new avatar ?

 VV wrote: 
Because it hurts your sense of decency to leave such tripe festering in the sun without at least trying to throw some dirt over it. It's a not unreasonable fear that someone might see 3 or 4 of his nonsense post go by without a rebuttal (or at least a hearty mocking), and think that he's not a complete outlier to rational thought here. 

 
kurtster wrote: 
Maybe it's just me, but I for one am not grateful for Scalise being shot... because no one should have been shot. Not one person or 25 people. Therefore it is a crazy statement to say you were glad that he was there to take a bullet. The sane thing is to simply praise the response of the security detail to minimize the incident... and leave it at that. You act as if this was an inevitable - and maybe - even a "fortunate" outcome rather than a tragic one. 

Why do I bother?

 kurtster wrote: 
That's not the answer to the current problems. You're just talking about older issues to keep from talking about the current ones.

 Coaxial wrote: 
ISIL is the JV team ...

The Cold War is over ...

You can keep your doctor ...

Benghazi was because of a video ...

Oh, and something about a Red Line in Syria ...

 VV wrote: 
From the official Crazy to English 'splainer, if not for Scalise being there with his security detail that he had only because of his House leadership position, there would have been no one there at all to stop the shooter.  Simple math says that with only baseball bats to defend themselves against guns, there would have been 25 dead republicans.  I may be wrong, but IIRC, it took local law enforcement 10 minutes to show up after the shooting started.

Do you really think that no one would be upset over the massacre of 25 dead republicans ?   On second thought, you may be right.  No one gives a rat's ass about repubs, only repubs do and they are just expendable morons, right ?  

Why do I even bother ... 

 kurtster wrote: 

I clicked on the link that you provided to the Wikipedia article about Jared Loughner (the guy who shot Giffords). From what I read, Loughner was not after Giffords alone. His mental illness latched onto politics and government likely because he was obsessed with mind control and conspiracy theories about control of large groups of people. He distrusted government in general. According to the Wikipedia excerpt below, he got angry at the sight of President GW Bush. It seems possible to me that he could have just as easily shot a Republican politician. But he was clearly mentally ill and not part of any organized attempt to hunt and attack Democratic politicians. 

Based on this WaPo article about James Hodgkinson, it seems that Hodgkinson was somewhat more rational than Loughner, at least until recently. But Hodgkinson's act was not part of a larger attempt to attack Republican politicians or create an insurrection against Republican rule. You see his act as part of a rational and politically coherent attempt to damage Republican rule, but he had no plan to draw in other angry Democrats or otherwise leverage the shootings into an organized war against Republican politicians. 

I'm sorry, but Hodgkinson was crazy—maybe not as crazy as Loughner, but the two of them had a warped view of the world that unfortunately found legitimacy in their minds by distrusting politics and attacking some politicians. If Hodgkinson were seriously trying to start a politically based war, anyone could have told Hodgkinson that the public would automatically side with his victims and turn against him. Just because he canvassed for Sanders and was fairly consistent in his expressed opinions on politics doesn't make Hodgkinson the tip of a conspiratorial spear amongst  Democratic voters.  

Think about this, kurtster: some of the angriest Democrats see Trump as a perversion of our democracy and his presidency as an illegal power-grab. They are energized in their collective opposition to Trump but they are not going to further compound a perceived illegal seizure of power by committing murder and felony assault in order to restore their idea of legitimate democracy. 

Are we as a nation too angry about politics and politicians? Yes, but this has been going on for quite a while, perhaps since LBJ when we're talking modern politics. If you're so worried about politically based violence in the US, I think you should be concerned about right-wing militias and even idiots like Cliven and Ammon Bundy and their buddies. If you actually find any left-wing militias proposing a possible need to fight off the federal government with weapons, do let us know. 

 kurtster wrote: 
Please explain how anyone should be grateful that Scalise was there to take a bullet? I left my Crazy to English dictionary at work.

 steeler wrote: 

You're right! The media did report extensively, even excessively, on Trump's speeches, casual remarks, his bogus public statements pre-advertized as major policy proposals, etc. Trump got almost $5 billion in free advertising, according to the tracking firm MediaQuant. Media coverage of him was almost non-stop, focused almost completely on spectacle, but largely uncritical. Yes, network news shows made occasional angry noises about Trump's statements, but there was very little fact-checking of his statements or attempts to analyze his vague policy statements in terms of cost, legality, or political feasibility. Most of the time, CNN, FOX and others were happy to cover anything did because he was helping them get huge profits and ratings. Most of the time, the media's tone about Trump was one of breathless shock and occasional outrage—"Can you believe what he said!?!?" As a result...

There was painfully little coverage of issues: 

Should the media have ignored Trump's outrageous behavior? No, because for a while it was newsworthy in and of itself. But major news organizations for the most part let their ability to remain independent of Trump's PR stunts disappear, because reporting on (actually, in many cases just repeating and broadcasting) The Trump Show was ratings gold. Asking skeptical questions like "How much would that Wall cost? Would it work as Trump promised? Is it legal? Will Congress go along?"—many news organizations didn't ask. 

It didn't seem during the campaign that Trump's supporters actually expected him to do all the things he promised. They were just happy that he was angry and paying attention to them. Like the media,  Trump's supporters too often failed to ask about the consequences of his statements and let him make the vaguest of promises about health care reform, tax reform and job-creation plans. If Trump can get anything passed through Congress, many of those supporters are going to be in for a rude awakening. 
If you have time, check out these NPR articles: 

http://www.npr.org/2016/05/05/476944825/how-the-media-failed-in-covering-donald-trump

http://www.npr.org/2016/11/08/501033242/weary-press-corps-can-celebrate-election-s-end-then-survey-wreckage

 kurtster wrote: 
you missed my point. I am not saying that the anger of the group you are talking about is illegitimate. I am saying that it is futile to try to give more credence to one group's anger over that of another. Of course, one group (or individual) perceives its  anger as more legitimate. The failure to see the legitimacy of the other group's anger is the dangerous downward spiral.

 kurtster wrote: 
So the guy who shot Gabby Giffords was acting morally. Crazy, sure, but not amoral.

 kurtster wrote: 
Peace, for sure. But you didn't really disagree with what I'd said.

And it's disingenuous to say that "y'all" are the ones riling them up. It was FOXNews.

Be honest: FOX was the thing that kept on with the Benghazi, the Kenya, the socialism, the Second Amendment, the False Flags, "he won't say 'radical Islamic terrorist'" and all the other hyperbole and fear that made so much of America angry and afraid. If folks want to despair, read through the comments section of any pro-Trump/anti-Obama FB page. The amount of venom and lies and threat there are way past reality. They've been brainwashed to hate reflexively, even to make up grievances so they can rail against those, too.

It was Hannity, O'Reilly, Krauthammer, and Carlson - as well as Drudge and Breitbart - who are responsible for the anger and misunderstanding and provincialism and xenophobia that infects our nation.

It was sponsored by the wealthy, to keep their assets safe: don't listen to the educated; don't believe in unions; invest in coal and oil; hate your neighbor if he's not like you.

Dude, this was all the message of FOXNews for at least a decade and now they're trying to back away and act shocked. But the damage is done and the message was clear and they're responsible for the Fifteen Minutes Hate. I completely understand "this group" that isn't going to calm down. FOX has told them that anyone who tries to calm them is a liar. But now they've riled up the dog, and it could bite anyone, anytime.

 

 steeler wrote: 
This is where you and others keep failing to understand.  These feelings are real.  These are feelings based upon conclusions that you disagree with.  Legitimacy has nothing to do with it.  Its all about perceptions.  I'm just trying to explain a perception that you fail to see or acknowledge simply because you may deem it illegitimate.  I'm not advocating it, just trying to explain it.  And failing miserably which is why I decided to give up this crap.  

Saying its illegitimate is not going to stop it.  Its only going to encourage it.  

C'ya ...

 kurtster wrote: 
It is a dangerous downward spiral, this whose anger is more legitimate game, whether we are talking about individuals or groups. Don't add to it.

 Steely_D wrote: 
To whom it may concern ...

Ya know ... I've been trying to disengage from all of this cuz it really is getting nutz out there.  I had a front row seat to the 60's originating in Berkeley and going beyond ending up at Kent State.  I've seen real crazy.  What is happening now is starting to make the 60's look tame.

I don't think very many people realize how close we just came to the birth of a revolution.  All's it needs right now is an excuse.  And 25 or so dead republican members of Congress so close to the 4th of July would be enough.  Whether or not any of y'all believe its open season on republicans doesn't matter to those who believe it is.  And that is all that really matters.  You can tell people what to do, but you can't tell them how to feel or think.  Would you call 30 or 40 million who think this way all crazy ?  They don't care what you think anymore and y'all are pushing them to the brink.  They are beginning to think that there is nothing left to lose, its all rigged and there is apparently only one way its going to end.

Don't worry about me.  I don't own a gun and ain't taking it to the streets.  But I know an awful lot of people who think this way.  Can anyone tell me when was the last time any of the right went nuts and rioted, burning cars, and neighborhoods, killing cops only because of a court ruling ?  How about the last time parts of the left went nuts and did all that ?  Last summer ? Who is the party of organized violence in America ?  Sure ain't the right.

Yeah Gabby Giffords was brought up to compare the event of a couple of days ago.  Predictable and I anticipated it.  

Here's what's different between Giffords and Alexandria, Va.  With Giffords, we truly had a crazy stalker who was after her, and her alone.  And being a democrat had little or anything to do with it.

In Alexandria, we crossed a line.  It became impersonal and purely political.  It became amoral.  We now have people openly belonging to public groups dedicated to hating people of a certain stripe hunting people purely based upon their political affiliations.  None of you here reading this (that is if you're still reading) may recognize this as being different, but there are a whole hell of a lot of people who feel otherwise and disagree with you.  You may call them unreasonable, paranoid or anything else you may want to, but it is not going to change how these people think.  

So if y'all want to believe that there is no difference between the Giffords case and the Alexandria one, you have nothing to worry about.  All the above is just random make believe.  Pure drivel.   I'm just asking you to consider looking at it differently.  It may help you to understand a group that you really don't understand.  At this point, I doubt that they are going to calm down anytime soon.  And I don't believe that anything will calm them down.  Trump is now the least of your worries ... y'all just don't know it yet.

Sorry for having to post any of this.  I really am.  Just be grateful that Scalise was there and took a bullet for this country.  I am.

Peace and out.

 kurtster wrote: 
It's too late to act innocent about stuff like this. The rest of America sat quietly during this crap, so it's not reasonable to get all indignant now about it. The outrage simply appears self-serving and hypocritical. The time to talk about the wrongness of it was when it started, regardless of the party of the man being threatened.

Some easy to find examples.

Four US troops plotted to kill President Obama 

A store in New Mexico posted racist "Kill Obama," "Muslims Not Welcome" signs on windows

Texas Man Threatened to Kill Obama ‘In the Name of Allah’

and lastly, this garbage that wasn't repudiated instantly by the man that thinks he's got the best words:

Tell me again its not open season on republicans.  

.
Terminate Republicans Facebook group ...


#HuntRepublicanCongressmen   #HuntRepublicans
.
You all are telling me that all these people are only crazy ?  I don't believe you.  These people are serious and dedicated to their cause, not crazy.  That's like trying to excuse ISIS as just crazy.

Somebody needs to do some rethinking and it ain't me ...

 steeler wrote: 
Folks that were watching The Media, particularly from the GOP mouthpiece, learned that Hillary was Queen Bitch and they should never ever think about voting for her, regardless of who ran against.

But, I believe that a very substantial portion of the nation either didn't watch The Media ravenously, because they were hard at work, or wanted to put a Businessman in charge of the nation for a change instead of some damned politician. And the subtleties fly right out the door.

Do you want that bitch whose husband cheated on her and then she got those Benghazi folks killed and doesn't support the troops and she's butt ugly, or do you want the man who's made a fortune on real estate and colleges and steaks and vodka and knows how to make good deals, and he loves our nation and has a hot daughter and promises to help us all by saving from all the damage that black Muslim did to us?

I don't think that most of the country, bless their hearts, thinks past that.