Why do democrats embrace an ideology of hate and violence?

[Crunch]

CNN's Don Lemon: "We have to stop demonizing people and realize the biggest terror threat in this country is white men, most of them radicalized to the right, and we have to start doing something about them. There is no travel ban on them. There is no white guy ban. What are we going to do about that?"

Eric Holder: “when they go low, we kick them”

Hillary Clinton: “You cannot be civil with a political party that wants to destroy what you stand for”

Maxine Waters: “Let's make sure we show up wherever we have to show up. And if you see anybody from that Cabinet in a restaurant, in a department store, at a gasoline station, you get out and you create a crowd. And you push back on them. And you tell them they're not welcome anymore, anywhere. We've got to get the children connected to their parents”  I particularly like the call to attack children... very nice.

Louis Farrakhan: “The Jews don't like Farrakhan, so they call me Hitler. Well, that's a good name. Hitler was a very great man.” and “ I'm not an anti-Semite. I’m anti-Termite.“

A total of 30 Republican members of Congress have either been attacked or revealed that they were the victim of a death threat since the beginning of May. list

That’s all since “Bernie Bro” James Hodgkinson attempted a mass assassination and Paul Ryan was blindsided and hospitalized.

All this against the backdrop of Antifa that is routinely threatening and assaulting people with deadly weapons and engaging in unlawful activities designed to threaten and harass. Not to mention the near weekly attacks on Republicans as they quietly have dinner or walk around in public.

[Seriati]

The simplest answer is they believe their cause is just and adhere to Barry Goldwater's maximum, "Moderation in pursuit of justice is not virtue."

The more complicated answer is that they have controlled the media and education for so long that they've convinced themselves as a matter of definition that hate and violence always come from the right.  If the right is violent then it's evidently their fault, if the left is violent it's the fault of the right for provoking them.

[TheDrake]

The Republican candidate for governor in Pennsylvania, former state Sen. Scott Wagner, drew national attention earlier this month with a campaign video in which he threatened Democratic Gov. Tom Wolf. “Gov. Wolf, let me tell you between now and Nov. 6, you better put a catcher’s mask on your face because I’m going to stomp all over your face with golf spikes."

That's not some random person. That's a violent threat from a Republican Gubernatorial candidate. This wasn't an off the cuff remark. This was a recorded video. So let's drop the one way street treatment, shall we?
 

[D.W.]

One way street?  This post is a sad knee jerk reaction to two high profile violent actors that fell squarely in the lap of the right just before election time.   

But OMG the Democrats as a whole embrace an ideology of hate and voilence!  Yep.  I always hated how Obama (or Sanders?) tried to divide us all and call out his detractors as enemies of the people and parroted conspiracy theories that shockingly weren't seen as harmless entertainment but rather as motivation by the disturbed in their camp... 

Just because some in the list above suggest or demand action and not being "civil" doesn't equate to hate or violence.  But overlooking that tiny detail, yep it's the exact same thing!  No wait, they're worse!  Someone will buy that... right?  I mean, people believe far crazier *censored*.  (such as what motivated this post in the first place)

[Crunch]

A Democratic state lawmaker in Missouri posted a now-deleted comment on Facebook expressing hope that the president would be assassinated.
It all started with a post from Missouri Democrat State Sen. Maria Chappelle-Nadal on her personal Facebook page, where she voiced her disgust at President Trump and claimed he was "causing trauma and nightmares." Someone by the name of Christoper Gagne commented that he was thinking about his cousin, who worked for the Secret Service under Barack Obama for four years and has to spend two more protecting President Trump. Gagne then wrote cryptically, "But, what I posted earlier, I truly believe will happen, sooner...rather than later."

Gagne proceeded to quip, "I'll probably get a visit from the Secret Service smdh."

Chappelle-Nadal stupidly decided to reply with the following comment: "No. I will. I hope Trump is assassinated!"

[Crunch]

One way street?  This post is a sad knee jerk reaction to two high profile violent actors that fell squarely in the lap of the right just before election time.   

But OMG the Democrats as a whole embrace an ideology of hate and voilence!  Yep.  I always hated how Obama (or Sanders?) tried to divide us all and call out his detractors as enemies of the people and parroted conspiracy theories that shockingly weren't seen as harmless entertainment but rather as motivation by the disturbed in their camp... 

Just because some in the list above suggest or demand action and not being "civil" doesn't equate to hate or violence.  But overlooking that tiny detail, yep it's the exact same thing!  No wait, they're worse!  Someone will buy that... right?  I mean, people believe far crazier *censored*.  (such as what motivated this post in the first place)

The post was about democrat leaders pushing a message a violence and those that have acted on it. As you can see from my previous post, it continues at all levels of the party, national and state. It’s nit two violent actors, it’s way more than that. How many Antifa members are there?

The left has moved from rhetoric to action. Antifa to restaurant assaults, shootings to bike locks in the head, the message of violence is being enacted.

The left is not going to like it when the right decides to play by these rules.

[Crunch]

The Republican candidate for governor in Pennsylvania, former state Sen. Scott Wagner, drew national attention earlier this month with a campaign video in which he threatened Democratic Gov. Tom Wolf. “Gov. Wolf, let me tell you between now and Nov. 6, you better put a catcher’s mask on your face because I’m going to stomp all over your face with golf spikes."

That's not some random person. That's a violent threat from a Republican Gubernatorial candidate. This wasn't an off the cuff remark. This was a recorded video. So let's drop the one way street treatment, shall we?

At worst it’s the whitest attempt at a threat ever heard. Did you really think he was gonna stomp his face with golf spikes unless wolf put on a catchers mask? Really? Okaaay. 

Did you think this is the same as hitting people in the head with a bike lock?

But , as I said, you won’t like it when the right decides to play by your rules.

[velcro]

CNN's Don Lemon: "We have to stop demonizing people and realize the biggest terror threat in this country is white men, most of them radicalized to the right, and we have to start doing something about them. There is no travel ban on them. There is no white guy ban. What are we going to do about that?"

No violence, just an evaluation of who has killed the most people lately.

Eric Holder: “when they go low, we kick them”

Has anyone actually been kicked?

Hillary Clinton: “You cannot be civil with a political party that wants to destroy what you stand for”

Oh my, incivility!  For shame!  (the topic is hate and violence)

Maxine Waters: “Let's make sure we show up wherever we have to show up. And if you see anybody from that Cabinet in a restaurant, in a department store, at a gasoline station, you get out and you create a crowd. And you push back on them. And you tell them they're not welcome anymore, anywhere. We've got to get the children connected to their parents”  I particularly like the call to attack children... very nice.

Confronting people in public - not nice, but not violent.  If it gets violent, you may have a point, but not now.

Louis Farrakhan: “The Jews don't like Farrakhan, so they call me Hitler. Well, that's a good name. Hitler was a very great man.” and “ I'm not an anti-Semite. I’m anti-Termite.“

He is not a Democrat.  I condemn those comments.

A total of 30 Republican members of Congress have either been attacked or revealed that they were the victim of a death threat since the beginning of May. list

Valid.  It happens to both sides, so your point is not made.  Add up the 14 pipe bombs and you are halfway there.

That’s all since “Bernie Bro” James Hodgkinson attempted a mass assassination and Paul Ryan was blindsided and hospitalized.

That one qualifies. It was immediately condemned by pretty much every Democrat everywhere. No false flags, no blaming the victims for not having enough security.

All this against the backdrop of Antifa that is routinely threatening and assaulting people with deadly weapons and engaging in unlawful activities designed to threaten and harass. Not to mention the near weekly attacks on Republicans as they quietly have dinner or walk around in public.

Please provide sources for Antifa routinely threatening and assaulting people with deadly weapons.

[Pete at Home]

Maxine Waters: “Let's make sure we show up wherever we have to show up. And if you see anybody from that Cabinet in a restaurant, in a department store, at a gasoline station, you get out and you create a crowd. And you push back on them. And you tell them they're not welcome anymore, anywhere. We've got to get the children connected to their parents” 

Confronting people in public - not nice, but not violent.  If it gets violent, you may have a point, but not now.

Read it again.  Confronting someone ANYWHERE, making clear they aren't welcome anywhere, is harassment, low level violence, and tends to inspire high level violence.  Remember George Zimmerman?  Maxiwaters is arguing that Democrats need to go George Zimmerman on GOP politicians and their children.  That's unquestionably an ideology of hate and violence.

Where Crunch's argument hits the wall: Maxine Waters no more represents the Democrats generally than David Duke represents the Republican party.

Crunch, I'm working 5 hours a day promoting Stacey Abrams' campaign for Georgia governor.  She's a Democrat.  I defy you, Crunch, to show me how Stacey Abrams (a former Democrat minority leader in the GA legislature, with a reputation for working well across party lines)

[Pete at Home]

That one qualifies. It was immediately condemned by pretty much every Democrat everywhere. No false flags, no blaming the victims for not having enough security.

Quote
All this against the backdrop of Antifa that is routinely threatening and assaulting people with deadly weapons and engaging in unlawful activities designed to threaten and harass. Not to mention the near weekly attacks on Republicans as they quietly have dinner or walk around in public.

Please provide sources for Antifa routinely threatening and assaulting people with deadly weapons.

2 points to Velcro there.  Antifa routinely threatens and assaults people with nonlethal weapons, and very rarely uses lethal weapons (far less than say, a typical antiabortion group, union, or anti-union group.)  I don't like Antifa; I see it as Stalin's last laugh on western civilization. 

[TheDrake]

some instruments, such as pocketknives, shoes, canes, walking sticks, and stones, while not deadly by design, can become "deadly weapons" depending on how the defendant has used them.

Still not routine, but I think it's not a stretch to see that they make a routine effort to carry items that can become deadly when employed. Stones are commonly advocated, in particular, as well as sticks and bats. We all know how hard it is to defend yourself against a pointed stick, or fresh fruit.

[TheDeamon]

some instruments, such as pocketknives, shoes, canes, walking sticks, and stones, while not deadly by design, can become "deadly weapons" depending on how the defendant has used them.

Still not routine, but I think it's not a stretch to see that they make a routine effort to carry items that can become deadly when employed. Stones are commonly advocated, in particular, as well as sticks and bats. We all know how hard it is to defend yourself against a pointed stick, or fresh fruit.

And of course an aluminum baseball bat weilded by a 160+ pound male is never life threatening, particularly when dealing with someone who has intentions of using it on somebody. Heck, wood baseball bats can kill people.

[TheDrake]

It's only life threatening when you swing it. That's when it becomes assault. Carrying it or using it in self-defense should be well supported by gun rights advocates. Unless you think there should be no-bat-zones.

[Pete at Home]

Drake is well informed on the law here. Well rebutted.

Yes, Antifa has demonstrated a pattern of bringing potential deadly weapons. But that’s not a routing. Just as Trump demonstrates a pattern but not a routine of racist statements. So as drake has pointed out, with anti-far has done is a problem, but it’s nowhere near a problem that crunch describes.

 So as drake has pointed out, what anti-fa has done is a problem, but it’s nowhere near the problem that crunch describes. The only thing that I would add to Drake’s legal analysis is that in the context of this sort of street protest, there would be a lower threshold for actions that cause a target to  “Reasonably Apprehend lethal violence,” the keystone of Assault.

[TheDeamon]

Drake is well informed on the law here. Well rebutted.

Yes, Antifa has demonstrated a pattern of bringing potential deadly weapons. But that’s not a routing. Just as Trump demonstrates a pattern but not a routine of racist statements. So as drake has pointed out, with anti-far has done is a problem, but it’s nowhere near a problem that crunch describes.

 So as drake has pointed out, what anti-fa has done is a problem, but it’s nowhere near the problem that crunch describes. The only thing that I would add to Drake’s legal analysis is that in the context of this sort of street protest, there would be a lower threshold for actions that cause a target to  “Reasonably Apprehend lethal violence,” the keystone of Assault.

There also is the matter with "intent to use it." The White Supremacists have decades of history of holding rallies, showing up armed to the teeth with guns and other assorted weaponry, and never used it. Heck even in Charlotte, they had guns, they didn't get used, what did get used, was a car.

AntiFa only has a few years of history behind it, and highly irregular reporting as to what they're doing or not doing. But they have established a very definite pattern of showing up with "improvised weapons" with both the intent and the track record of escalating situations until violence occurs so they can use what they brought.

Generally speaking, I'm not worried about somebody packing a baseball bat around of any particular size or tyep. I even have a small one in my truck, to check my tires. 

However, if I see someone walking around with a baseball bat, AND plainly associating themselves with AntiFa, that's intent to commit violence as far as I'm concerned.

[Pete at Home]

Drake is well informed on the law here. Well rebutted.

Yes, Antifa has demonstrated a pattern of bringing potential deadly weapons. But that’s not a routing. Just as Trump demonstrates a pattern but not a routine of racist statements. So as drake has pointed out, with anti-far has done is a problem, but it’s nowhere near a problem that crunch describes.

 So as drake has pointed out, what anti-fa has done is a problem, but it’s nowhere near the problem that crunch describes. The only thing that I would add to Drake’s legal analysis is that in the context of this sort of street protest, there would be a lower threshold for actions that cause a target to  “Reasonably Apprehend lethal violence,” the keystone of Assault.

There also is the matter with "intent to use it." The White Supremacists have decades of history of holding rallies, showing up armed to the teeth with guns and other assorted weaponry, and never used it. Heck even in Charlotte, they had guns, they didn't get used, what did get used, was a car.

AntiFa only has a few years of history behind it, and highly irregular reporting as to what they're doing or not doing. But they have established a very definite pattern of showing up with "improvised weapons" with both the intent and the track record of escalating situations until violence occurs so they can use what they brought.

Generally speaking, I'm not worried about somebody packing a baseball bat around of any particular size or tyep. I even have a small one in my truck, to check my tires. 

However, if I see someone walking around with a baseball bat, AND plainly associating themselves with AntiFa, that's intent to commit violence as far as I'm concerned.

 And what I am saying is that you’re inference is more reasonable in a pack of Antifa counter-protesters, and less reasonable if applied to an Antifa member playing baseball on a break.   I recommend reading caselaw on the Assault crime.

[TheDeamon]

Obviously there is a difference between "playing ball" or general goofing around(and going to/from such venues), and turning up to protest something with a baseball bat.

[Pete at Home]

I agree that it should be obvious, which is why I used it as an example to illustrate the general principle which is less obvious that what constitute a salt depends a great deal on context.

[Crunch]

Don Lemon and CNN double down:

Earlier this week, I made some comments about that in a conversation with Chris [Cuomo],” Lemon said. “I said that the biggest terror threat in this country comes from radicals on the far right, primarily white men. That angered some people. But let’s put emotion aside and look at the cold hard facts. The evidence is overwhelming."

Math checks out, white men need to be banned says CNN and Lemon. How do you ban white men? What, exactly, are they proposing be done to white men?

[Crunch]

some instruments, such as pocketknives, shoes, canes, walking sticks, and stones, while not deadly by design, can become "deadly weapons" depending on how the defendant has used them.

Still not routine, but I think it's not a stretch to see that they make a routine effort to carry items that can become deadly when employed. Stones are commonly advocated, in particular, as well as sticks and bats. We all know how hard it is to defend yourself against a pointed stick, or fresh fruit.

Routine.

https://www.reddit.com/r/EnoughAntifaSpam/

[TheDeamon]

Don Lemon and CNN double down:

Earlier this week, I made some comments about that in a conversation with Chris [Cuomo],” Lemon said. “I said that the biggest terror threat in this country comes from radicals on the far right, primarily white men. That angered some people. But let’s put emotion aside and look at the cold hard facts. The evidence is overwhelming."

Math checks out, white men need to be banned says CNN and Lemon. How do you ban white men? What, exactly, are they proposing be done to white men?

And that kind of rhetoric just increases the threat they're likely to pose. Brilliant!

[D.W.]

And here I thought we were fighting enough wars that if our "angry white men" wanted to go "fight our enemies" all they had to do was enlist... 

Then again, I suppose their role model thought that was beneath him as well. 

[Seriati]

Where Crunch's argument hits the wall: Maxine Waters no more represents the Democrats generally than David Duke represents the Republican party.

In what world is it true that Maxine Waters, who has been an elected representative in the House of Representatives for 28 straight years,  an elected representative in CA for 28 years before that, the ranking member of the House Financial Services Committee, which means she will be its chair assuming the Democrats take the house "no more a representative" of the Democratic Party than David Duke, who has repeatedly been denied any office by an electorate (Wiki says he once won in a LA special election).

Maxine Waters who runs a powerful marketing system that other Dems pay to be on, that is an invited speaker at Democratic events, and that as far as I know is not denounced by any Democrat.  Versus David Duke who is a persona non grata with Republicans, and really all people, not acknowledged by any part of the Republican party and pretty much rejected by the entire party.

Even writing that reflects a blanket unawareness of how insidious the constant lies of the left really are.

As far as violence, the left makes death threats constantly and the media chooses to barely cover them, whereas they put the reverse on a constant spin loop in the national media.  Go read the threats that Susan Collins received to herself and her family in connection with the Kavanaugh vote and tell me with a straight face the left doesn't have a problem. 

The police seize deadly weapons at every protest of any size, yet the vast majority of protests have little to no violence.  Antifa protests have a higher incidence of violence than other protests, which makes sense, given they explicitely endorse using violence in politics, but again, the media doesn't really want you to know that.  Do you recall the days of coverage that came from a claim that "someone heard" a racist insult at a Tea Party rally?  Which was never true.  Have you ever seen anything equivalent from the rallies of Antifa?  Not cause it doesn't happen, heck there was a rally where antifa thugs beat up someone on their own side because he brought a US flag to the rally to "reclaim" it for their cause.

[TheDrake]

You must be watching TV news. Virtually every major written news outlet has had an in-depth article about the rise of Antifa and they are not portrayed favorably.

[Wayward Son]

Maxine Waters: “Let's make sure we show up wherever we have to show up. And if you see anybody from that Cabinet in a restaurant, in a department store, at a gasoline station, you get out and you create a crowd. And you push back on them. And you tell them they're not welcome anymore, anywhere. We've got to get the children connected to their parents”  I particularly like the call to attack children... very nice.

F***ing-A, Crunch!  This is why you need to link to your quotes.  Because if you don't have a link, you often miss the context of the quote.

Check out CNN:

Rep. Maxine Waters called on her supporters to publicly confront and harass members of the Trump administration in response to the "zero tolerance" policy that led to the separation of families at the border...

"Let's make sure we show up wherever we have to show up. And if you see anybody from that Cabinet in a restaurant, in a department store, at a gasoline station, you get out and you create a crowd. And you push back on them. And you tell them they're not welcome anymore, anywhere. We've got to get the children connected to their parents," Waters said at the Wilshire Federal Building, according to video of the event.

Sounds pretty much like you said, right?  Go after their children.  Until you read the next statement.

"We don't know what damage has been done to these children. All that we know is they're in cages. They're in prisons. They're in jails. I don't care what they call it, that's where they are and Mr. President, we will see you every day, every hour of the day, everywhere that we are to let you know you cannot get away with this," she added.

She wasn't talking about attacking children.  She was talking about connecting the Cabinet members to the Trump Administration's actions of separating children from their parents.  The complete opposite of what you said! 

Who twisted these words, Crunch?  Did you just glance over Maxine's words and jump to a conclusion?  Or were you lied to by some demagogue lie to you and tell you that's what she meant, because he knew you wouldn't bother to check his claim?  We're comparing Maxine Waters to David Duke because she encouraged people to scream at politicians they are mad at?  Or because she supposedly told them to go after these politicians' children, which she didn't do?

Here you are, calling for civility for those who will twist words to demonize their opponents, take children from their parents over misdemeanors, and then threaten her life over calling people to strongly protest these actions.  And then you're horrified that they are calling for stronger measures! 

I know, it's terrible to harass politicians when they go out to restaurants because you disagree with their politics.  But when their politics means taking children away from their parents to try to force people into complying with their politics, I'm not surprised that some people will get so upset that they will make it personal, or encourage others to do so.  Because you don't get more personal that that.  Or do you think you wouldn't take it personally if some politician took your friend's children away from them over a misdemeanor like speeding or jaywalking?

Before you go about demonizing the opposition, and make accusations that they are calling for attacks on children, make sure you got your facts right.  Because you pretty much blew it this time.

[TheDrake]

some instruments, such as pocketknives, shoes, canes, walking sticks, and stones, while not deadly by design, can become "deadly weapons" depending on how the defendant has used them.

Still not routine, but I think it's not a stretch to see that they make a routine effort to carry items that can become deadly when employed. Stones are commonly advocated, in particular, as well as sticks and bats. We all know how hard it is to defend yourself against a pointed stick, or fresh fruit.

Routine.

https://www.reddit.com/r/EnoughAntifaSpam/

Laughable that you think curated bad events supports your claim that when Antifa shows up they routinely engage in violence. But I'm coming to expect little of you and your ilk. Evidence by anecdote is routine for you.

[DJQuag]

Don Lemon and CNN double down:

Earlier this week, I made some comments about that in a conversation with Chris [Cuomo],” Lemon said. “I said that the biggest terror threat in this country comes from radicals on the far right, primarily white men. That angered some people. But let’s put emotion aside and look at the cold hard facts. The evidence is overwhelming."

Math checks out, white men need to be banned says CNN and Lemon. How do you ban white men? What, exactly, are they proposing be done to white men?

Maybe he's suggesting that we do the same for white men that the unhinged right suggest we do to Muslims? In an ironic way?

I mean, if you look at the terrorist attacks and mass shootings since 9/11, I know which ethnic/gender group looks more threatening to me. And even with 9/11, our government has and does kiss the asses of the people responsible. (The Saudis.)

[velcro]

Antifa protests have a higher incidence of violence than other protests,

Source please.

[velcro]

Don Lemon and CNN double down:

Earlier this week, I made some comments about that in a conversation with Chris [Cuomo],” Lemon said. “I said that the biggest terror threat in this country comes from radicals on the far right, primarily white men. That angered some people. But let’s put emotion aside and look at the cold hard facts. The evidence is overwhelming."

Math checks out, white men need to be banned says CNN and Lemon. How do you ban white men? What, exactly, are they proposing be done to white men?

First of all, please point out, with actual, linked sources, where Lemon says white men should be banned.  Not that radicals on the far right are dangerous, which he said, but the words you attribute, "white men should be banned".

As far as I can tell, he never said that.  If you can prove it, I will leave it alone. If you can't, then the inevitable conclusion is that you are making stuff up to make your point.  As you know, that is frowned upon.

What indeed are they proposing?  Why don't we spend 30 seconds on Google to find the quote in context.

“So people who were angered about what I said are missing the entire point,” Lemon said about his earlier statements. “We don’t need to worry about people who are thousands of miles away. The biggest threats are homegrown. The facts prove that.”

Lemon was not proposing doing anything about far-right radicals (who are mostly white men).  He is saying don't distract from that issue by focusing on a caravan thousands of miles away.  He does not prescribe any solution to the problem, just to focus our efforts on the actual danger instead of the politically convenient but vastly less important danger.

[Seriati]

You must be watching TV news. Virtually every major written news outlet has had an in-depth article about the rise of Antifa and they are not portrayed favorably.

The impact of propaganda is in volume.  In depth write ups show the reality to those who choose to consume them, but they can't overwhelm the impact of a news cycle that puts them up once and then drops them, while playing a constant loop on the "other sides" problems.  Do you remember when Clinton won re-election despite his problems, the motto was, "It's the economy stupid," the way people feel about the current economy should have guaranteed a red wave if it was the "economy stupid." 

Honest opinion, if the media had spent the last 3 months touting the economy and not talking negatively about Trump, what do you think the impact on this election would have been?  That's just as "legitimate" a spin as what they have done, and exactly what they would have done if it was a Democrat in office.

Propaganda works on everyone, whether they are "too smart" for it or not.

[TheDrake]

Trump's story could have been one about the economy, if he hadn't had so many gaffes, feuds, and controversial policies. Personally, I put a pretty low correlation between policy and economy at all times. Did FDR draconian economic measures speed the exit from the Depression or not? It's awfully hard to prove any correlation with such things.

Why would any free media talk about how awesome things are? That's what you see from state run media - like China. A free press is supposed to point out flaws and problems, not act like cheerleaders. They're not exactly suppressing information about the Dow or job numbers. But would you really devote more time to talking about how great job numbers are when there's been a mass shooting, Army border deployments, violent protests, systematic rollback of environmental and consumer protections, and the shaping of the Supreme Court? Would that be a newsroom, or a Trump propaganda machine?

[TheDeamon]

That would be all well and good, except for the matter of Republicans almost ivariably getting the "uphill fight" news byline whenever it is possible to spin it that way.

Economy doing well under a Democrat Admin? Republican prospects look poor in light of a good economy.

Republicans doing something else? News byline: What's it going to cost the Republicans, and how the Democrats are going to use it to their advantage.

Ditto just about every other policy change pushed by Republicans: What's it going to cost for _____?

Democrats push something? Let us show you how these programs are going to benefit many people....

[Seriati]

Trump's story could have been one about the economy, if he hadn't had so many gaffes, feuds, and controversial policies.

Controversial policies from the left are routinely buried or labelled as "old news," meanwhile the first article I recall on Trump's impeachment was filed I think 2 minutes after his inaugeration.  Trump's uniquely positioned to be criticized with a lack of political background and constant tweeting, but open communication from Obama was labelled "refreshing" and from Trump "dangerous."  You don't get a Noble Peace prize for Obama and glowing coverage from the day he started running, versus 95% negative coverage on Trump as any reasonable result of their relative policies or even demeanor.

Personally, I put a pretty low correlation between policy and economy at all times.

That may be true for you personally.  But it's taken a massive negative media propaganda effort to keep the Trump economy from keeping Republican's in power.

Did FDR draconian economic measures speed the exit from the Depression or not?

No.  I thought it was generally known that they delayed the exit, are you thinking there is a debate there?

Why would any free media talk about how awesome things are?

Fairness.  The fact is this media has a side and they suppress news that doesn't support their side and blow news that does out of proportion.  it's exactly like what a state controlled media does, except in this case its only the non-elected part of the "state"  the bureaucracy and its Democratic allies.

That's what you see from state run media - like China. A free press is supposed to point out flaws and problems, not act like cheerleaders.

That's true, except they don't point out problems about Democrats, or they 'splain them away.

They're not exactly suppressing information about the Dow or job numbers. But would you really devote more time to talking about how great job numbers are when there's been a mass shooting, Army border deployments, violent protests, systematic rollback of environmental and consumer protections, and the shaping of the Supreme Court?

Well yes.  The economy is one of the most important factors in the direction of the country and the population understanding the impact of consumer and business confidence of the policies of one administration versus the next is something that ought to help direct the future of the country.  The idea that is' not material to the voters or the country is crazy.

Mass shooting?  More sensational than policy.

"Army border deployment" how about we discuss the real issue?  An immigration policy that encourages illegal immigration that 80% plus of the country doesn't want and the party that won't allow it to be fixed (Democrats)?  It's a perfect example of an issue the media only covers in ways that help the Democrats notwithstanding the party position of the DNC is way off the main stream. 

Violent protests.  Please cover them and be honest about who is engaged in the violence and why.  Pretty please.

Roll back of environment and consumer protections?  Truly eye of the beholder, could just as easily charaterize as a return to normal from the anti-business abuses of the prior implementation in imposing unilateral changes for political reasons that were never justifiable under our laws.  It's just a fact that even with the "rollback" US environmental protections are still top notch.  Even consumer protections are way above standard.

Shaping of the SC?  Really, Republican replaces 2 Republican appointed Justices - the horror.  The real story is about how low and dishonest the Democrats went in trying to prevent it. 

Would that be a newsroom, or a Trump propaganda machine?

I'd accept any form of neutral reporting.  If I could flip the switch tommorrow and "lock-in" 55/45 favorable in favor of Democrats I'd still take it.  Anything to get off of the 90/10 we see today.

[scifibum]

Trump's economy gets as much coverage as anyone's ever did. It's overwhelmed by his utter, bottomless dip*censored*tery. Blaming that on the media is ridiculous.

[velcro]

It's just a fact that even with the "rollback" US environmental protections are still top notch.  Even consumer protections are way above standard.

Source please?  Especially since you claim it is a "fact".

BTW, I am not trolling.  I am just reading posts, and when someone makes a very clear statement that seems false, and has no sources, I ask for a source. If there is a valid source that supports the claim, I change my mind. [If you doubt that last statement, provide a counterexample].  That is how I learn new things.

[TheDrake]

Another reason why the media doesn't cover more about the economy is Trump himself. He doesn't highlight it. Neither do pro-Trump outlets. How many articles on wildly pro-Trump Breitbart are about the economy versus immigration, deplatforming, ant-trump protests, blm, abortion, et al?

How much in a Trump rally is devoted to the economy versus other topics?

[scifibum]

Right. Trump drives the news cycle. There are reports from WH staffers indicating this is a deliberate strategy.

[Fenring]

Right. Trump drives the news cycle. There are reports from WH staffers indicating this is a deliberate strategy.

What do you mean by "drives"?

[scifibum]

He tweets or says things that he knows will generate negative news coverage. The birthright citizenship thing was an example. I believe he had two reasons: He was continuing his strategy of making the midterms about supposed dangers of immigrants, and wanted to move some of the coverage away from Pittsburgh.

[Crunch]

A left-wing mob showed up outside Fox News host Tucker Carlson’s house Wednesday evening, posted pictures of his address online and demanded that he flee the city of Washington, D.C.

Carlson, a co-founder of The Daily Caller and host of “Tucker Carlson Tonight,” was at the Fox News studio when the angry crowd showed up outside of his house.

At least one of the protesters went all the way up to Carlson’s front door, where they left a sign with his family’s home address written on it and rang his doorbell.

Video the group, “Smash Racism DC,” posted to Twitter shows one of the mob’s ringleaders leading the crowd in chants of “racist scumbag, leave town!” and “Tucker Carlson, we will fight! We know where you sleep at night!”

Then some doxxing:

Hours after an Antifa mob showed up at the home of Fox News host Tucker Carlson, an affiliated Twitter account published his home address and the home address of his brother Buckley Carlson — along with the addresses of Ann Coulter, Daily Caller’s Neil Patel, and Sean Hannity.

[velcro]

Yes, that is rude, and publishing home addresses is unacceptable.

Violent?  No, not yet.  Pipe bombs?  Just one woman talking about it.  Shooting? Nope. Any arrests? Not that I can tell.

And from a first amendment standpoint, it is horrible that a journalist should be threatened. No question, no matter who does it.

What do you have to say about hundreds of journalists being called "enemy of the people", over and over and over, by the President of the United States?
Yes, I am drawing that equivalence, because pipe bombs were actually sent.  Journalists have been killed.

[Crunch]

They pounded on the front door, actually cracking it. Carlson’s wife was justifiably terrified of a home invasion. It’s only a matter of time before this goes off the rails.

Nope, no arrests. They’re Democrats, it’s acceptable to attempt a home invasion. You know that.

No pipe bombs were sent, it’s my understanding they were fake. Kind of like a cool clock. I am unaware of any journalists killed by these or by the Trump administration. Can you point out who Trump has killed?

[Crunch]

Matthew Yglesias:

I honestly cannot empathize with Tucker Carlson’s wife at all — I agree that protesting at her house was tactically unwise and shouldn’t be done — but I am utterly unable to identify with her plight on any level.

It is hard to identify with non-humans.  Right?

[yossarian22c]

Matthew Yglesias:

I honestly cannot empathize with Tucker Carlson’s wife at all — I agree that protesting at her house was tactically unwise and shouldn’t be done — but I am utterly unable to identify with her plight on any level.

It is hard to identify with non-humans.  Right?

Great Matthew Yglesias (wtf is that?) is a grade A a**hole and is on the left (I assume). Should I respond with a quote from a random neo nazi to show there are bad people on the right too? That doesn't seem like a productive dialogue.

I hope the people going to Tucker's house get arrested for trespassing and potentially destroying property. If they want to protest him do it outside Fox News Headquarters, not at his house. The protesters actions were illegal, immoral, and dangerous.

[Fenring]

Yes, that is rude, and publishing home addresses is unacceptable.

Violent?  No, not yet.  Pipe bombs?  Just one woman talking about it.  Shooting? Nope. Any arrests? Not that I can tell.

Doxxing people and threating them at their house *is* violence. It doesn't have to be a hammer to the head to be a direct physical threat and putting the person's family in danger. Saying that doxxing isn't violence is like saying that giving someone's info to a hitman 'isn't violence' because the action you're doing isn't literally bodily assault. I would actually go even further than this and suggest that this action, assuming it is as it's being reported here, was terrorism.

[D.W.]

We have to be careful saying things like that are violence.  It can be far more serious than lawful/nonviolent/moral protest while still being short of actual violence.  There IS actual violence going on due to people's political beliefs.  We do ourselves a disservice blurring those lines.

[TheDrake]

Whipping someone into a frenzy and then giving them the means to act against someone in person, knowing that some of the people you are whipping up are unapologetic destroyers of property and often get into physical fights....

That's encouraging violence.

WHO defines violence (my emphasis).

"the intentional use of physical force or power, threatened or actual, against oneself, another person, or against a group or community, which either results in or has a high likelihood of resulting in injury, death, psychological harm, maldevelopment, or deprivation,"

Screaming profanity at someone who is trying to eat a sandwich at a delicatessen IS violence.

[Wayward Son]

Nope, no arrests. They’re Democrats, it’s acceptable to attempt a home invasion. You know that.

What are the laws against "attempted home invasion?"  What are the penalties?

Or are you just making up laws?

And seriously, Antifa is as closely associated with Democrats as Nazis are associated with Republicans.  So why would the police not treat them like criminals? 

In fact, when has being a Democrat ever been a defense against arrest? 

[Crunch]

Nope, no arrests. They’re Democrats, it’s acceptable to attempt a home invasion. You know that.

What are the laws against "attempted home invasion?"  What are the penalties?

Or are you just making up laws?

Have you heard of Google? The answers to your question are readily available. Trespassing, attempted unlawful entry, attempted burglary, home invasion, can apply when you try to break down the door of someone‘s home.

And seriously, Antifa is as closely associated with Democrats as Nazis are associated with Republicans.  So why would the police not treat them like criminals? 

In fact, when has being a Democrat ever been a defense against arrest? 

So why weren’t they treated like criminals? They are behaving criminally. CNN has come out in defense of Antifa.  Keith Ellison, deputy chair of the DNC,  has tweeted photos of himself holding the antifa handbook and calling out Trump. So yeah, Democrats and Antifa, you’re gonna have to own that.

As for defense against arrest, maybe check out Portland’s mayor and his handling of antifa.

[Crunch]

Matthew Yglesias:

I honestly cannot empathize with Tucker Carlson’s wife at all — I agree that protesting at her house was tactically unwise and shouldn’t be done — but I am utterly unable to identify with her plight on any level.

It is hard to identify with non-humans.  Right?

Great Matthew Yglesias (wtf is that?) is a grade A a**hole and is on the left (I assume). Should I respond with a quote from a random neo nazi to show there are bad people on the right too? That doesn't seem like a productive dialogue.

I hope the people going to Tucker's house get arrested for trespassing and potentially destroying property. If they want to protest him do it outside Fox News Headquarters, not at his house. The protesters actions were illegal, immoral, and dangerous.

From a random neo nazi, no.  But Yglesias is not just some random person.

Yglesias has written columns and articles for publications such as The American Prospect, The Atlantic, and Slate. Currently, he is an editor and columnist for the news website Vox, which he co-founded in 2014.

The people were not arrested - and they are not protestors.