House Majority Whip shot at congressional baseball field

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

What does need to come of this terrible event is an acknowledgement, from both sides, that things have gone too far. I've said before that it's generally the party out of power that engages in the fiercest rhetoric. I think Trump took this to eleven. Trump certainly took things too far on the campaign trail, e.g. offering to pay the legal bills of anyone who beat up a protester. The response from the left was to go to fifteen. I've mentioned before that anyone not heavily criticizing Trump's every move is immediately branded a Trump supporter by many (most?) left leaning people. There's a refusal to even see the possibility of a middle ground and it's pushing people to the extremes. Extreme thinking is eventually, for some, going to lead to extreme action. We see it with Antifa, we saw it at Trump rallies in CA and we just saw the worst example of it yesterday.

It's got to stop and it needs to stop at the top. Maxine Waters, Gillibrand, etc. need to tone down the extreme rhetoric and hopefully that will trickle down to celebrities, which will trickle down and so forth. If things stay as is I predict a dark outcome.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(06-15-2017, 10:28 AM)Vlad Wrote:  
Democrats praying?

Hmmm...wasn't it the democrats that voted to remove God from the democratic platform during the DNC convention in 2012?

 "There ain't no atheists in a foxhole" anyone?

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/photo-democrats-pray-for-republican-colleagues-after-baseball-shooting/article/2625917

Good to see some people can put aside political differences for at least 30 seconds.

[*wildcats forever*]

(06-15-2017, 10:38 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: What does need to come of this terrible event is an acknowledgement, from both sides, that things have gone too far.  I've said before that it's generally the party out of power that engages in the fiercest rhetoric.  I think Trump took this to eleven.  Trump certainly took things too far on the campaign trail, e.g. offering to pay the legal bills of anyone who beat up a protester.  The response from the left was to go to fifteen.  I've mentioned before that anyone not heavily criticizing Trump's every move is immediately branded a Trump supporter by many (most?) left leaning people.  There's a refusal to even see the possibility of a middle ground and it's pushing people to the extremes.  Extreme thinking is eventually, for some, going to lead to extreme action.  We see it with Antifa, we saw it at Trump rallies in CA and we just saw the worst example of it yesterday.

It's got to stop and it needs to stop at the top.  Maxine Waters, Gillibrand, etc. need to tone down the extreme rhetoric and hopefully that will trickle down to celebrities, which will trickle down and so forth.  If things stay as is I predict a dark outcome.

I could not agree with you more on this. The few times I have any encouragement (lately) is when I hear someone, almost anyone, make a plea to attack the issues only. Solve the problems that they represent, and stop the hate towards another. I'm so sick of the the "What about Clinton or Bush or Obama or Gingerich?" instead of taking on our declining quality of life for each and every one of us. Hammer the issues and not the people, and progress will follow ..... eventually. 

[Belsnickel]

(06-15-2017, 10:38 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: What does need to come of this terrible event is an acknowledgement, from both sides, that things have gone too far. I've said before that it's generally the party out of power that engages in the fiercest rhetoric. I think Trump took this to eleven. Trump certainly took things too far on the campaign trail, e.g. offering to pay the legal bills of anyone who beat up a protester. The response from the left was to go to fifteen. I've mentioned before that anyone not heavily criticizing Trump's every move is immediately branded a Trump supporter by many (most?) left leaning people. There's a refusal to even see the possibility of a middle ground and it's pushing people to the extremes. Extreme thinking is eventually, for some, going to lead to extreme action. We see it with Antifa, we saw it at Trump rallies in CA and we just saw the worst example of it yesterday.

It's got to stop and it needs to stop at the top. Maxine Waters, Gillibrand, etc. need to tone down the extreme rhetoric and hopefully that will trickle down to celebrities, which will trickle down and so forth. If things stay as is I predict a dark outcome.

The problem is that there has been an increased polarization in our government (which is funny to me, given how we don't have many real liberals in the bunch thanks to neo-liberalism) and that polarization is just a reflection of society as a whole. This isn't new, but is has been compounding for a couple of decades now. I've said before, the division in Congress has not been this wide since the antebellum Congress.

I don't know what it is going to take, but when we come out the other side it could be something different than we have known before. The 14th Amendment drastically changed how our government institutions and it was a result of the divisiveness that existed pre-war.

[Penn]

(06-15-2017, 10:38 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: What does need to come of this terrible event is an acknowledgement, from both sides, that things have gone too far.  I've said before that it's generally the party out of power that engages in the fiercest rhetoric.  I think Trump took this to eleven.  Trump certainly took things too far on the campaign trail, e.g. offering to pay the legal bills of anyone who beat up a protester.  The response from the left was to go to fifteen.  I've mentioned before that anyone not heavily criticizing Trump's every move is immediately branded a Trump supporter by many (most?) left leaning people.  There's a refusal to even see the possibility of a middle ground and it's pushing people to the extremes.  Extreme thinking is eventually, for some, going to lead to extreme action.  We see it with Antifa, we saw it at Trump rallies in CA and we just saw the worst example of it yesterday.

It's got to stop and it needs to stop at the top.  Maxine Waters, Gillibrand, etc. need to tone down the extreme rhetoric and hopefully that will trickle down to celebrities, which will trickle down and so forth.  If things stay as is I predict a dark outcome.

(06-15-2017, 11:57 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: The problem is that there has been an increased polarization in our government (which is funny to me, given how we don't have many real liberals in the bunch thanks to neo-liberalism) and that polarization is just a reflection of society as a whole. This isn't new, but is has been compounding for a couple of decades now. I've said before, the division in Congress has not been this wide since the antebellum Congress.

I don't know what it is going to take, but when we come out the other side it could be something different than we have known before. The 14th Amendment drastically changed how our government institutions and it was a result of the divisiveness that existed pre-war.

Two or three times per year something happens that prompts me to see what is being said in this PnR forum.  If this attitude was the prevailing mentality I would contribute more but it isn't.  Those of us in the middle are completely alienated by both sides.  Meanwhile, those who foster the environment of divisive mentality remain the loudest voice so therefore they are heard by more people.

Oh, and yes, make no mistake if I read even the first page of PnR I will see people fostering the division that leads to the lone individual to truly believe their actions are justified.  I remember seeing a forum once where there was a special section for political or religious talk to keep it out of the main portion of the forum.  Yeah, they did such a great job at that.  The members were allowed (excessively large) sigs and avatars that pushed their political views out into the other parts of the board.  Hell, one of the members actually had a sig that very clearly equated the president of this country to an insane mass murderer.  Yeah, that isn't divisive or a way of fostering the type of hatred to help a mentally unstable individual feel justified in committing an atrocious act.

One thing that will surely not come of this horrible act of killing is people will almost definitely not analyze their own behavior to determine if, even if VERY indirectly, maybe their own actions foster the environment of hate.  Instead they will read a comment like this and feel more justified and might even try to rationalize their own actions because the feel they were called out as an individual.  Clue for you all, the post isn't about just one person.

[*michaelsean*]

(06-14-2017, 05:20 PM)hollodero Wrote: That's the sad part. It is. It's actually really simple. Just don't do it. Just don't start the blame game. But that's the climate, of course someone blamed the media and Bill Maher and Rachel Maddow and whatnot immediately for the deed of a lunatic. Of course that happened, for that's how the US seems to roll. Stirring the pot, appreciating the opportunity. 

But that's not a given. It's what people choose to make out of it.

(Btw. the "radical left" media reports about that all day long, they don't blame anyone, they don't sweep it under the rug... they offer condolences and say it's appalling and that's that.)

Of course they wouldn't blame anyone, he was on "their side".  Rest assured that roles would be reversed were it a Trump supporter.  It goes as far back as Bill Clinton blaming talk radio for Timothy McVeigh.  It happened in the Aurora shooting when some newsguy found a person with the same name on facebook who was a TEA Party member.  Went right to camera with it. Or when they tried to blame the bullseyes Sarah Palin had drawn on districts in the Gabby Giffords shooting.

[Dill]

(06-14-2017, 06:03 PM)tigerseye Wrote: The Main Stream Propaganda Outlets/idiot celebrites got what they have been calling for.

Dumba%$es fall for their made up lies and bulsh$% and they know it.

Their efforts to get some idiot to do what they have been calling for finally paid off for them. Congratulations.

I'm sure that they can careless that the guy is dead (or that people are seriously injured). Thats what makes them dispicable human beings. They used some moron to do their bidding.

No one will take responsibility for the climate that they have created, they will act like they had no part in it and that what they did was harmless.

They know what they are doing. They are doing it on purpose. And they are trash for using people like this that they know they can push to far.

Soros is probably grinning from ear to ear. This is exactly what he wants. Use the Media and Hollywood with propaganda to get idiots to follow their directives to tear down, weaken and divide the country.

Soros and his puppets are the scum of the earth.

Tiger, why not step back a moment and check all the channels before posting something like this.  I have seen commentators across several networks saying "we all need to ratchet the rhetoric down" and discussing ways that might be done. 

But I have only seen one channel giving space to commentators who think this shooting should make us angrier and that we should focus that anger directly upon one political party.

Why aren't the places we learn that the mainstream media and Hollywood are "trash" and liars considered "propaganda outlets." Aren't they "doing it on purpose" to divide the country? Why don't those who purvey that sort of rhetoric bear some responsibility for "the climate"?

Right now almost all members of the House are discussing ways to show a united front, to present themselves, in Ryan's words, as "the people's House" first.  People who are interested in politics and looking for a new trend to support might support this one. Respond positively to politicians and media who take this tack and censure those who don't.

[Belsnickel]

(06-15-2017, 12:22 PM)Penn Wrote: Two or three times per year something happens that prompts me to see what is being said in this PnR forum.  If this attitude was the prevailing mentality I would contribute more but it isn't.  Those of us in the middle are completely alienated by both sides.  Meanwhile, those who foster the environment of divisive mentality remain the loudest voice so therefore they are heard by more people.

I'm not disagreeing with your post, but I just wanted to say that the world doesn't need to be full of moderates in order for there to be some civility in all of this. I have said before, I'm likely one of the more liberal people on here, but I am not partisan. If a Republican throws up a policy I agree with, I am all for it, and I openly criticize Democrats on a regular basis.

It's just a matter of thinking critically about the information you have and being able to present rational, logical arguments about it when discussing it with people. Being able to respect the opinions of others and discern opinion from fact. These things tend to get lost in a lot of discussions about politics, and this board is definitely no exception.

[CageTheBengal]

(06-15-2017, 10:38 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: What does need to come of this terrible event is an acknowledgement, from both sides, that things have gone too far.  I've said before that it's generally the party out of power that engages in the fiercest rhetoric.  I think Trump took this to eleven.  Trump certainly took things too far on the campaign trail, e.g. offering to pay the legal bills of anyone who beat up a protester.  The response from the left was to go to fifteen.  I've mentioned before that anyone not heavily criticizing Trump's every move is immediately branded a Trump supporter by many (most?) left leaning people.  There's a refusal to even see the possibility of a middle ground and it's pushing people to the extremes.  Extreme thinking is eventually, for some, going to lead to extreme action.  We see it with Antifa, we saw it at Trump rallies in CA and we just saw the worst example of it yesterday.

It's got to stop and it needs to stop at the top.  Maxine Waters, Gillibrand, etc. need to tone down the extreme rhetoric and hopefully that will trickle down to celebrities, which will trickle down and so forth.  If things stay as is I predict a dark outcome.

Trump's supporters and the Republican establishment have to take responsibility for legitimizing Trump. Trump may have taken it to 11 but his supporters said that was okay by supporting him because they have been pushed to believing more extreme action is necessary to take back their country. They have been pushed by the Tea Party, Entertainment news and Republican establishment through baseless fear mongering and it picked up steam once Obama got elected it just got worse and worse.  Obama did nothing to warrant the spewing of alternative facts and overall hate that was flung his way. He was just another president. There was no reason to deny his supreme court nominee and there was no reason why all of the obstruction the Republicans caused should have happened during his time.

Don't take my statement as a way to excuse violence on behalf of liberals but it's the root of the problem. If Republicans weren't pushed to believe their country was under siege by the men and women in power then they wouldn't find extremism necessary and Trump wouldn't have the support he did. If they spent less time fear mongering and more time doing what they said they would do we wouldn't be in this position.  Electing Trump just fostered more extremism. Trump supporters double down and everyone else that can't stand him that gets unfairly labeled a liberal resort to more extreme tendency's. I'm a registered Independent and get called a liberal all of the time.

We all should agree that the political climate needs to change and violence needs to stop but to act like both parties are equally to blame isn't true imo. While both parties have caused damage in their own way there is only one party that endorsed Trump and let him speak under their banner and jumped at the first opportunity to shift what they believed in order to adopt Trump as their own.

The swamp, Alt facts news/blogs and now Trump have all made a killing off of the manipulation of a group of people and while it isn't unheard of for politicians to manipulate supporters across the board for their own gain the boundaries have been pushed since George W's 2nd term. Not blaming him that's just when I remember the fear mongering started ramping up.

The fear mongers are the problem.

[hollodero]

(06-15-2017, 12:40 PM)michaelsean Wrote: Of course they wouldn't blame anyone, he was on "their side".  Rest assured that roles would be reversed were it a Trump supporter.  It goes as far back as Bill Clinton blaming talk radio for Timothy McVeigh.  It happened in the Aurora shooting when some newsguy found a person with the same name on facebook who was a TEA Party member.  Went right to camera with it.

Well, some newsguys make erratic calls, that's something to be differentiated a bit. OK, honestly I don't know about your examples, I only recently took interest in your MSM. I had CNN running for quite some time yesterday, I would have been open to seeing questionable sayings, but I did not come across any hint the guy was "on their side", his deeds could be understood somehow, that Trump or the Republican party brought this on themselves or anything among these lines. The condemnation was pure, loud and clear and sure looked non-partisan. 

The "if the shoe was on the other foot" examples are always a bit tricky, hard to disprove, and I can't. There sure is no love lost between MSM and Trump (which doesn't make them Democrats), but Trump brought the negative coverage on himself more often than not. I honestly think CNN is even quite polite to him at times, but be that as it may. MSNBC sure is more biased in parts, like this Chris Matthews person, ok. But to say/imply a Rachel Maddow is the left equivalent to a Rush Limbaugh or Sean Hannity is a questionable conclusion, and putting blame on her (no fan myself) makes even less sense as blaming talk radio for Oklahoma (which isn't righteous either, don't get me wrong). There is quite a distinct difference between those people.

That murderer was a lunatic and a crazy person, no need to see him as a logical product of the Rachel Maddow show, no need to imply there is indeed a bit of blame to spread. That isn't helpful and only politicizes the manner more than it's feasible, and it would best not be used to divide, but to unite. Most of your politicians on both sides seem to follow that recipe. When you say "he was on their side", I think these are words not completely justified and not entirely balanced. Hence, more divisive than necessary or called for.

[GMDino]

(06-15-2017, 12:40 PM)michaelsean Wrote: Of course they wouldn't blame anyone, he was on "their side".  Rest assured that roles would be reversed were it a Trump supporter.  It goes as far back as Bill Clinton blaming talk radio for Timothy McVeigh.  It happened in the Aurora shooting when some newsguy found a person with the same name on facebook who was a TEA Party member.  Went right to camera with it.  Or when they tried to blame the bullseyes Sarah Palin had drawn on districts in the Gabby Giffords shooting.

It goes back further than that.

Conservatives blamed rock music for violence AND the opposition to the Vietnam War.

Before that elites blamed education on women wanting equality.

Everyone wants to blame something and tag the other side with it.

[*michaelsean*]

(06-15-2017, 01:57 PM)hollodero Wrote: Well, some newsguys make erratic calls, that's something to be differentiated a bit. OK, honestly I don't know about your examples, I only recently took interest in your MSM. I had CNN running for quite some time yesterday, I would have been open to seeing questionable sayings, but I did not come across any hint the guy was "on their side", his deeds could be understood somehow, that Trump or the Republican party brought this on themselves or anything among these lines. The condemnation was pure, loud and clear and sure looked non-partisan. 

The "if the shoe was on the other foot" examples are always a bit tricky, hard to disprove, and I can't. There sure is no love lost between MSM and Trump (which doesn't make them Democrats), but Trump brought the negative coverage on himself more often than not. I honestly think CNN is even quite polite to him at times, but be that as it may. MSNBC sure is more biased in parts, like this Chris Matthews person, ok. But to say/imply a Rachel Maddow is the left equivalent to a Rush Limbaugh or Sean Hannity is a questionable conclusion, and putting blame on her (no fan myself) makes even less sense as blaming talk radio for Oklahoma (which isn't righteous either, don't get me wrong). There is quite a distinct difference between those people.

That murderer was a lunatic and a crazy person, no need to see him as a logical product of the Rachel Maddow show, no need to imply there is indeed a bit blame to spread. That isn't helpful and only politicizes the manner more than it's feasible, and it would best not be used to divide, but to unite. Most of your politicians on both sides seem to follow that recipe. When you say "he was on their side", I think these are words not completely justified and not entirely balanced. Hence, more divisive than necessary or called for.

That's why I put it in quotes.  He was politically on their side. No they won't try to explain it (like some here) they will play it off.  And I willingly admit that if a right winger does this, then the right wing will play it off.  The people that try to pretend it's any different in the way one side acts versus the other when something like this happens are only fooling themselves.

[Dill]

(06-15-2017, 12:40 PM)michaelsean Wrote: Of course they wouldn't blame anyone, he was on "their side".  Rest assured that roles would be reversed were it a Trump supporter.  It goes as far back as Bill Clinton blaming talk radio for Timothy McVeigh.  It happened in the Aurora shooting when some newsguy found a person with the same name on facebook who was a TEA Party member.  Went right to camera with it.

If a Trump supporter had shot a group of Democrats, we would see what we see now--news commentators noting the political connection and deploring the highly partisan rhetoric which supposedly incites violence, and people all over social media would be reminding us how Trump encouraged supporters to mistreat dissenters at his rallies.  And until a shooter's sanity is ruled out, these are understandable responses no matter which "side" a shooter seems to take.

Unlike the Aurora shooter, McVeigh was not mentally incompetent. And his belief that big government run by Jews was biased against whites in favor of blacks and planning to confiscate guns, and that the right spark would set off a revolution of white gun owners, can in fact be traced to media sources which are certainly NOT Hollywood and the mainstream media. This ideology was not born with McVeigh and it did not die with him. And it was certainly his motivation, as it was Dylan Roof's when he killed nine black citizens of South Carolina.


Whenever there is a shooting, various media sources attempt to provide clarifying background, some more carefully than others. For a week after Gifford was shot there was some speculation that her shooter may have been motivated by ideology, but as more info came out, it was clear that he, like the Aurora shooter, was mentally unstable. Sometimes its hard to tell, as with the last abortion clinic murders in Colorado. Within three days to a week, though, the matter is usually settled. If insanity is the verdict, the MSM do not then go on "blaming Republicans" or whomever for what a mentally disturbed person does. The fact that the recent shooter was a Bernie supporter has not been scrubbed from the news, though it will recede if it becomes clear he was mentally unstable, as presently looks to be the case.

There are times when political ideology is part of the story which explains a killer's motivation, and times when it is not. In this most recent case, new information is still coming in. If one starts with the assumption the MSM will somehow treat this case differently because the shooter was a Bernie supporter one will likely find one's bias confirmed; better to look at and compare various news sources to get the full picture available without first presuming what one will find.

[*michaelsean*]

(06-15-2017, 02:04 PM)Dill Wrote: If a Trump supporter had shot a group of Democrats, we would see what we see now--news commentators noting the political connection and deploring the highly partisan rhetoric which supposedly incites violence, and people all over social media would be reminding us how Trump encouraged supporters to mistreat dissenters at his rallies.  And until a shooter's sanity is ruled out, these are understandable responses no matter which "side" a shooter seems to take.


Unlike the Aurora shooter, McVeigh was not mentally incompetent. And his belief that big government run by Jews was biased against whites in favor of blacks and planning to confiscate guns, and that the right spark would set off a revolution of white gun owners, can in fact be traced to media sources which are certainly NOT Hollywood and the mainstream media. This ideology was not born with McVeigh and it did not die with him. And it was certainly his motivation.

Whenever there is a shooting, various media sources attempt to provide clarifying background, some more carefully than others. For a week after Gifford was shot there was some speculation that her shooter may have been motivated by ideology, but as more info came out, it was clear that he, like the Aurora shooter, was mentally unstable. Sometimes its hard to tell, as with the last abortion clinic murders in Colorado. Within three days to a week, though, the matter is usually settled. If insanity is the verdict, the MSM do not then go on "blaming Republicans" or whomever for what a mentally disturbed person does. The fact that the recent shooter was a Bernie supporter has not been scrubbed from the news, though it will recede if it becomes clear he was mentally unstable, as presently looks to be the case.


There are times when political ideology is part of the story which explains a killer's motivation, and times when it is not. In this most recent case, new information is still coming in. If one starts with the assumption the MSM will somehow treat this case differently because the shooter was a Bernie supporter one will likely find one's bias confirmed; better to look at and compare various news sources to get the full picture available without first presuming what one will find.

I didn't presume anything.  I stated what biased news sources will say, and if the situation were reversed, so would what each one says.  If people start to realize that whatever side they find themselves is no betterthan the other when it comes to this thing, then they will believe it's different when they do it, and they will continue.  I mean look at the contortions made earlier in this thread to blame Trump supporters for this.  Really?

[Benton]

(06-15-2017, 10:38 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: What does need to come of this terrible event is an acknowledgement, from both sides, that things have gone too far.  I've said before that it's generally the party out of power that engages in the fiercest rhetoric.  I think Trump took this to eleven.  Trump certainly took things too far on the campaign trail, e.g. offering to pay the legal bills of anyone who beat up a protester.  The response from the left was to go to fifteen.  I've mentioned before that anyone not heavily criticizing Trump's every move is immediately branded a Trump supporter by many (most?) left leaning people.  There's a refusal to even see the possibility of a middle ground and it's pushing people to the extremes.  Extreme thinking is eventually, for some, going to lead to extreme action.  We see it with Antifa, we saw it at Trump rallies in CA and we just saw the worst example of it yesterday.

It's got to stop and it needs to stop at the top.  Maxine Waters, Gillibrand, etc. need to tone down the extreme rhetoric and hopefully that will trickle down to celebrities, which will trickle down and so forth.  If things stay as is I predict a dark outcome.

Agreed, but the problem is, Trump showed it worked. Be hateful. Advocate violence. Mock your foes and those not in the majority. Go to that extreme, and you win.

He ran up until the very end on a platform calling for extremism. It's fair to ask those who oppose those views not to advocate the same things, but it's also understandable why they wouldn't want to. Doing so presumably loses more ground in Congress and — in three years — the White House. Representation and policy making shrink for one side, those concerned will do what has been shown to be effective.

We've moved to a culture where being a good person isn't regarded or worth as much as being the winner. 

(06-15-2017, 11:57 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: The problem is that there has been an increased polarization in our government (which is funny to me, given how we don't have many real liberals in the bunch thanks to neo-liberalism) and that polarization is just a reflection of society as a whole. This isn't new, but is has been compounding for a couple of decades now. I've said before, the division in Congress has not been this wide since the antebellum Congress.

I don't know what it is going to take, but when we come out the other side it could be something different than we have known before. The 14th Amendment drastically changed how our government institutions and it was a result of the divisiveness that existed pre-war.

Any significant change is likely a long way off. It will take some major displacement before most people's way of life is effected. People will continue to gravitate in one direction or another as their interests (jobs, housing costs, ability to rear children, etc.) are threatened. 

[Dill]

(06-15-2017, 02:12 PM)michaelsean Wrote: I didn't presume anything.  I stated what biased news sources will say, and if the situation were reversed, so would what each one says.  If people start to realize that whatever side they find themselves is no betterthan the other when it comes to this thing, then they will believe it's different when they do it, and they will continue.  I mean look at the contortions made earlier in this thread to blame Trump supporters for this.  Really?

All news sources are to some degree "biased." We don't have any unbiased sources to appeal to, so I value and credit sources according to how well they adhere to journalistic standards, including accuracy, non-partisanship, and logical consistency.

Some US news sources clearly do see themselves as taking a "side" in US politics. They respond to news events the way that campaign staff do when a candidate is running for office, looking to "put out competing narratives" and the like in an accusatory style. As I mentioned to another poster, one such news source is currently giving voice to those who would stoke anger over the recent shooting and then direct that anger against the other side. 

But all US news sources do not and would not do this. They are not merely the "reverse" of openly partisan news sources, even if what they report is bad news for your side.

So I am saying two things here: 1) that if we go by journalistic standards, some news sources are certainly better than others. And 2) because some are better than others, it is inaccurate to say all are equally partisan organs simply reversing charges depending upon which side a shooter appears to take.

This makes me unwilling to say that one side is no better than the other.

[NATI BENGALS]

Wonder how many in the media think like this?

In regards to the Comey stuff. No video, audio, sex, money, or dead bodies... Boring scandal. People dont care.
https://youtu.be/qkgeOyRAoek

This is our media and we have a president obsessed with ratings. And this came from his favorite channel.

[NATI BENGALS]

(06-15-2017, 10:38 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: What does need to come of this terrible event is an acknowledgement, from both sides, that things have gone too far.  I've said before that it's generally the party out of power that engages in the fiercest rhetoric.  I think Trump took this to eleven.  Trump certainly took things too far on the campaign trail, e.g. offering to pay the legal bills of anyone who beat up a protester.  The response from the left was to go to fifteen.  I've mentioned before that anyone not heavily criticizing Trump's every move is immediately branded a Trump supporter by many (most?) left leaning people.  There's a refusal to even see the possibility of a middle ground and it's pushing people to the extremes.  Extreme thinking is eventually, for some, going to lead to extreme action.  We see it with Antifa, we saw it at Trump rallies in CA and we just saw the worst example of it yesterday.

It's got to stop and it needs to stop at the top.  Maxine Waters, Gillibrand, etc. need to tone down the extreme rhetoric and hopefully that will trickle down to celebrities, which will trickle down and so forth.  If things stay as is I predict a dark outcome.

I think it would help if our government realised they need to compromise. 

Most people didnt vote for this president or his agenda. Half the country disagrees with it. 

We had record oil production, record consecutive months of job creation, health insurance companies that couldnt turn away sick people, low gas prices, and supposedly rules in place that would prevent another financial disaster. Not everything was rainbows and unicorns. But it wasnt all bad.  

Why go in and take a baseball bat to stuff we made progress on? Hell. The only reason to undue the progress we made with cuba was because Obama did it. But it is on the table for some reason.

[Dill]

(06-15-2017, 02:37 PM)Benton Wrote: Agreed, but the problem is, Trump showed it worked. Be hateful. Advocate violence. Mock your foes and those not in the majority. Go to that extreme, and you win.

He ran up until the very end on a platform calling for extremism. It's fair to ask those who oppose those views not to advocate the same things, but it's also understandable why they wouldn't want to. Doing so presumably loses more ground in Congress and — in three years — the White House. Representation and policy making shrink for one side, those concerned will do what has been shown to be effective.

We've moved to a culture where being a good person isn't regarded or worth as much as being the winner.

Yes, Trump did that. Not the other Republican nominees; not Hillary and Bernie. And a segment of the electorate responded to the extreme rhetoric or thought it negligible enough to look past. Now Trump does it from the highest position of leadership in that party, setting the standards/incentives (and disincentives) for success within his party.

If I understand you correctly, Democrats looking for success may have to incorporate Trump-style extremism into their campaigns as well. I am not sure this will work so well on that side of the aisle, though.  I think someone who runs as a Democrat for any office anywhere will lose votes by promising to pay legal fees for supporters who use violence against hecklers.

I too deplore where the culture has moved.

[*michaelsean*]

(06-15-2017, 02:40 PM)Dill Wrote: All news sources are to some degree "biased." We don't have any unbiased sources to appeal to, so I value and credit sources according to how well they adhere to journalistic standards, including accuracy, non-partisanship, and logical consistency.

Some US news sources clearly do see themselves as taking a "side" in US politics. They respond to news events the way that campaign staff do when a candidate is running for office, looking to "put out competing narratives" and the like in an accusatory style. As I mentioned to another poster, one such news source is currently giving voice to those who would stoke anger over the recent shooting and then direct that anger against the other side. 

But all US news sources do not and would not do this. They are not merely the "reverse" of openly partisan news sources, even if what they report is bad news for your side.

So I am saying two things here: 1) that if we go by journalistic standards, some news sources are certainly better than others. And 2) because some are better than others, it is inaccurate to say all are equally partisan organs simply reversing charges depending upon which side a shooter appears to take.

This makes me unwilling to say that one side is no better than the other.

i never said they were equally partisan, I'm speaking only of partisan news outlets, and for that matter partisan people.  If you don't think the left tries the blame game equally, you are one of those people.  Again I will refer you to Aurora and Giffords.