Far Right Extremists

[Gregg]

Glad you're there to predictably and immediately call me out before responding to your own pathetic piece of shit garbage President. Priorities!

If you stand shoulder to shoulder with racists and nazis, under a President that provides comfort to and incites extremists to violence over and over again, and your response is some BS about how "both sides need to do better"... well then yeah, your disingenuous party of terrorist sympathizers needs to be electorally fucking eradicated to the greatest degree possible.

Of course I did. This post from a party perspective is laughable. Of course my response is tongue and cheek. But you are saying that the right need to go away. I did not mention the president.

As usual you fly off the handle and assume things that are not there. Show me where I even disagreed with you.

I have been told that this is the hot button topic section and all is fair. Some have applauded your bold and vocal angry stance. Even to the point of name calling. While I enjoy your presence at RJ, you sound a lot to me like the fringe of those you rail against.

Seriously get a better candidate and you might find some with moderate right tendencies to actually vote Democratic.

[nots]

All politicians lie. Going completely off topic and accusing me of being triggered? Look in the mirror bud.

If you think it’s about Bob Menedez lying, you haven’t been paying much attention.
Yes, you are triggered. And again, i was responding to Hornsby’s post—-right on target.
Perhaps you would feel better if you just blocked me.

[Hornsby]

Of course I did. This post from a party perspective is laughable. Of course my response is tongue and cheek. But you are saying that the right need to go away. I did not mention the president.

As usual you fly off the handle and assume things that are not there. Show me where I even disagreed with you.

I have been told that this is the hot button topic section and all is fair. Some have applauded your bold and vocal angry stance. Even to the point of name calling. While I enjoy your presence at RJ, you sound a lot to me like the fringe of those you rail against.

Seriously get a better candidate and you might find some with moderate right tendencies to actually vote Democratic.

Here's an honest suggestion...if you intend to say something tongue and cheek, pop in an emoji. Most of your posts that you say were tongue in cheek I've interpreted as being serious.

[nots]

I would hope that more will do so than you may believe...how good is Menendes opponent? Is he/she worth voting for? Or is the status quo better for your state?

Hugin is a pro-choice, pro equal pay, pro gay marriage fiscal conservative. He agrees with Trump on a lot of economic policy and keeps his distance on just about everything else.
Perhaps more people would vote him in here than I give credit for, but I have my doubts.

[Sour Masher]

Seriously get a better candidate and you might find some with moderate right tendencies to actually vote Democratic.

I haven't looked at the numbers enough to know for sure, but I suspect that is is increasingly about picking a candidate that gets more of your base voting or independents voting. The problem with picking a candidate on the left that would peel off any R voters is that such a candidate would lose D voters. In fact, for most Rs, I'm at a loss--I can't think of who would bring over a decent number of Rs against Trump. I've heard praise from the right for Hickenlooper. Is he someone moderate Republicans here would vote for over Trump in 2020? Anyone else? I'd be curious about which moderate Dems you'd and other moderate Rs would vote for, if you are willing to share.

[nots]

I haven't looked at the numbers enough to know for sure, but I suspect that is is increasingly about picking a candidate that gets more of your base voting or independents voting. The problem with picking a candidate on the left that would peel off any R voters is that such a candidate would lose D voters. In fact, for most Rs, I'm at a loss--I can't think of who would bring over a decent number of Rs against Trump. I've heard praise from the right for Hickenlooper. Is he someone moderate Republicans here would vote for over Trump in 2020? Anyone else? I'd be curious about which moderate Dems you'd and other moderate Rs would vote for, if you are willing to share.

Not a moderate Republican, but I will answer.
Not voting for Trump under any circumstance. If the Dems nominate someone like Booker, Warren or Harris, I will go Libertarian again (hopefully NOT GARY Johnson). If they nominate Klobuchar, Bullock, Biden, Hickenlooper (or someone in that moderate vein), I would probably vote for them. As I have said before, if they nominate Gabbard, I will volunteer for her (I know she is probably 8 years away at least )

[Hornsby]

Hugin is a pro-choice, pro equal pay, pro gay marriage fiscal conservative. He agrees with Trump on a lot of economic policy and keeps his distance on just about everything else.
Perhaps more people would vote him in here than I give credit for, but I have my doubts.

I'd take a TRUE fiscal conservative in a heartbeat, someone who's dedicated to keeping spending in ALL areas in check, not just red meat for the base. I know that it seems like a lost cause, but eventually the budget has to become balanced...again.

[cardboardbox]

I haven't looked at the numbers enough to know for sure, but I suspect that is is increasingly about picking a candidate that gets more of your base voting or independents voting. The problem with picking a candidate on the left that would peel off any R voters is that such a candidate would lose D voters. In fact, for most Rs, I'm at a loss--I can't think of who would bring over a decent number of Rs against Trump. I've heard praise from the right for Hickenlooper. Is he someone moderate Republicans here would vote for over Trump in 2020? Anyone else? I'd be curious about which moderate Dems you'd and other moderate Rs would vote for, if you are willing to share.

I'm not really republican though I do vote for them mainly because the other side is not an option. I'd consider a democrat that wasnt tied to liberal orthodoxy... Give me a democrat who believes we should have real enforceable borders, that doesnt want to tax the rich and business to hell and back, that wont hurt the economy with never ending regulations, that wont practice identity politics. Even if there was a democrat like that they would still nominate far left judges which would make them unacceptable to me. But if there's a democrat out there like I just described, I'd be interested in learning more about him/her. I'm certain I left out some other issue requirements but thats just off the top of my head.

[Fresno Bob]

All I see in 3 pages is a whole lot of dodging around the fact that the vast majority of domestic terrorism is carried out by right wing, GOP supporting fuckwits. I'm on the other side of that

[DMT]

I'm not really republican though I do vote for them mainly because the other side is not an option. I'd consider a democrat that wasnt tied to liberal orthodoxy... Give me a democrat who believes we should have real enforceable borders, that doesnt want to tax the rich and business to hell and back, that wont hurt the economy with never ending regulations, that wont practice identity politics. Even if there was a democrat like that they would still nominate far left judges which would make them unacceptable to me. But if there's a democrat out there like I just described, I'd be interested in learning more about him/her. I'm certain I left out some other issue requirements but thats just off the top of my head.

So you want a Republican, got it.

[DMT]

All I see in 3 pages is a whole lot of dodging around the fact that the vast majority of domestic terrorism is carried out by right wing, GOP supporting fuckwits. I'm on the other side of that

Of course not, because they can't accept reality. They'd rather deflect and derail the thread.

[Teenwolf]

All I see in 3 pages is a whole lot of dodging around the fact that the vast majority of domestic terrorism is carried out by right wing, GOP supporting fuckwits. I'm on the other side of that

So those approximately 260 murders committed by the far right... and 100 murders by radical Islamists... and 12 or so murders by left wing extremists.... these numbers dont interest conservatives. Let me quote one of their biggest projectionists in saying "Facts don't care about your feelings." The fact that Far Right terrorists kill 20 for every left wing extremist kill... doesn't matter. It's their feeling that Trump should be allowed to "stoke the base" even if that's to violent extremism, without consequence... that's what matters more so than statistics that show reality.

Same with the immigrant caravan. All immigrants commit crime at lower levels than Native born citizens, so they're NOT a security risk... and immigration overall brings in more revenue than it costs in social assistance and other services... so they're a net positive in crime and a net positive financially, but its conservatives scared feelings that are the most important thing to cater to, because they vote with fear as their primary issue. I hope conservatives are terrified by the way women, minorities, and millennials are leaving the party in droves. I would hope a party couldn't survive such a monster as Trump. We shall see.

[cardboardbox]

So you want a Republican, got it.

I can accept gun control, murdering your unborn children, gay rights (although I think most on the right are starting to accept this also), a moderate amount of climate change prevention, less military spending, net neutrality, and I'm sure I'm leaving off plenty of others.

edit: removed political correctness because I'm not sure what I mean.

[Hornsby]

Of course not, because they can't accept reality. They'd rather deflect and derail the thread.

Who are you referring to? 'Cuz the only one from the other side (as I see it), is Nots...

[Judge Jude]

Buckle up for hearing the name Steve Scalise a million times in the wake of the right wing extremist attacks, both with the mail bomber and the synagogue shooter.

The reality is that right-wing extremists commit acts of violence with far more frequency than any left wing counterparts (Antifa only show up to fascist congregations, and they're only a threat to fascist sympathizers). Take a look at these statistics from a study published by the Anti-Defamation League:



Do the math. Less than 3% of the extremist murders were by left-wing extremists. It's an interesting article. Keep it in mind as the media debates the "violent rhetoric and actions on both sides" this week. Fox News literally interrupted coverage of McConnell's upsetting dinner experience to deliver breaking news about the bombs... without a hint of shame or irony. "Both sides", everyone!

https://www.adl.org/resources/report...states-in-2016

I would be interested in B-Fly's response to whether the Anti-Defamation League is the Holy Bible (so to speak) of objectivity on the issue.

I don't necessarily disagree with your premise, but in general I also think you are trying to figure out how to best get your points across. if the ADL is a group whose pros and cons you have studied, at all, and you have concluded that they are a very reliable source, that's fine - because then if they publish another report that goes against your preconceptions, you presumably would defer to them (maybe even post it here).

but if such a report would lead you to dismiss them, then you would just be someone who has an ax to grind and is looking around randomly for an ax-grinder.

do you like to be surprised by articles that are counter to those preconceptions? those are the best kind, seriously. it's great to feel as if you understand something, only to find that new knowledge can persuade you otherwise.