Politics

Rage Rules American Politics

And it may be making violence more likely.

|

In the wake of two high-profile mass shootings over the weekend, the conversation got a little vitriolic in America. Again.

Screaming at each other over policy disputes, the loudest segments of the population set out to prove that they are unworthy to ever be trusted with the power to rule over people with whom they disagree. They made their case well, and it would be advisable to refuse deference to any government that any of them control.

To my taste, gun control advocates are hard to beat for pure nastiness, cranking the rhetoric volume to 11 even as they insist that they're advocates for peace. It's par for the course for them to call people who defend the self-defense rights of innocent people "terrorists" with "blood on their hands." Outside the home of Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky), they wished for somebody to "stab the motherfucker in the heart."

"Americans have a lot of work to do, and that work starts with calling those you disagree with politically murderers," joked the satire site The Babylon Bee in response to the heated verbiage.

McConnell's party is up to the challenge of amping up the language in turn. Just weeks ago, Republicans sent chills down the spines of their opponents with calls to deport a group of left-wing members of Congress, most of whom were born and raised in the United States. They should "go back and help fix the totally broken and crime infested places from which they came," president Trump said. "Send her back," his supporters chanted at a rally.

Leading up to the recent vileness competition, Americans had already stoked their mutual dislike to a roaring blaze. While the 2016 presidential race was still being waged, Pew Research reported that "partisans' views of the opposing party are now more negative than at any point in nearly a quarter of a century."

Just "negative" views of each other? Oh, those were innocent and carefree days!

By fall of 2018, an Axios poll found that roughly half of the surveyed Democrats and Republicans alike considered each other "ignorant" and "spiteful." More strongly, 21 percent of Democrats said Republicans were "evil," and 23 percent of Republicans said the same about Democrats.

Considering your political opponents "ignorant," "spiteful," and "evil" is a bigger deal than just having negative views about them because it raises the stakes in the fight over the vast power of the modern state. Government controls law enforcement, the regulatory apparatus, and the intelligence community and the ability to target those powers wisely or malevolently. How do you casually walk away from a lost election if you think the people who won the ability to manipulate that apparatus are malicious and will wield their power stupidly and spitefully?

Chances are, the thought of being ruled by evil people fills you with dread. And you ramp up the insults and apocalyptic language accordingly, with all that entails.

By last month, 78 percent of Americans told pollsters that "heated or aggressive" language in political debate makes violence more likely. Americans should know. Beyond politically motivated shootings and street fighting involving a tiny minority, too many people in this country really are ready to start swinging.

Reporting that over 40 percent Americans now say the political opposition is "downright evil" and many think the country would be better off if opponents "just died," a paper published this year shows a shift toward acceptance of political violence.

"Violence would be justified" if the opposing party wins the 2020 presidential election say 18 percent of Democrats and 13 percent of Republicans, according to the report by Nathan P. Kalmoe and Lilliana Mason, political scientists at Louisiana State University and the University of Maryland.

But coming out on top doesn't make things better. Anticipating an election win increased support for violence in the study.

That's disturbing. It also may be inevitable. "I told you so," the ghost of Alexis de Tocqueville gets to say, if he's the gloating sort.

"Several particular circumstances in America also tend to make the power of the majority not only predominant, but irresistible," de Tocqueville wrote in his often prescient 19th-century study of the United States. He warned that majoritarian dominance would breed conflict.

"If liberty is ever lost in America, it will be necessary to lay the blame on the omnipotence of the majority that will have brought minorities to despair and will have forced them to appeal to physical force. Then you will see anarchy, but it will arrive as a consequence of despotism."

At the prospect of being at the mercy of a temporary majority of their political enemies, Americans clearly are brought to despair. Anarchy sounds like a fair alternative to being governed by either Republicans or Democrats empowered to turn their mutual loathing into official policy.

Those of us who reject both hateful factions are likely in for as rough a ride as the supporters of whichever legacy party gets the short end of the stick. We're not with the in-group, so we're bound to be regarded as enemies by whoever wins.

Dialing down the power of the state is always a good idea, and doing so long ago might have avoided the current situation by reducing the stakes of our political contests. But we're stuck with the government we have and it's being fought over by squabbling bands of lunatics who hate each other.

Refusing to submit to whoever comes out on top in the national screaming contest is just good sense.

NEXT: Gun Control Cases to Watch at the Supreme Court

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

    1. ++

        1. ++++++[>++++++<-]>>+….

          1. Damit:
            +++++++[>++++++<-]>+….

    2. The article is frauduent because it reports that more Democrats think violence would be justified if Trump won in 2020 but does not report that the study posed 4 situations where violence would be justified and in 3 of the 4, Republicans had higher scores, including
      “How mucDh do you feel it is justified for [Own party] to use violence in advancing their
      political goals these days?”

      I find such cherry picking to be both fallacious and dishonest. In 2018, there were 58 killed by right wing terrorists, zero by Antifa, zero by leftists, zero by Democrats.
      I am not a Democrat but a radical independent who believes, with our Founding Fathers who wrote and ratified the Declaration of Independence, that those who rule without equality and consent of the governed (ie winners of elections) are unjust and illegitmate and invoke the right of armed revolution.

      Since Trump has never had consent of the governed, by our founding principles, he is not legitimate and if he “wins” again without majority support (consent), it is our birthright to take up arms against him. That is the one case in which Democrats were more intensely supportive of violence (justified revolution is not violence but force used against viollence), while in the other 3 more genera questions, Republicans were more supportive of violence.

      Here is the link to confirm these facts:
      /www.dannyhayes.org/uploads/6/9/8/5/69858539/kalmoe___mason_ncapsa_2019_-_lethal_partisanship_-_final_lmedit.pdf

      and

      D of I: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.–That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, –That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, ”

      Jefferson made it clear that consent of the governed meant majority rule, or at a minimum, the candidate winning the most votes of the citizens.

      1. In 2018, there were 58 killed by right wing terrorists, zero by Antifa, zero by leftists, zero by Democrats.

        Obviously those lefties are stark raving mad! Fat Rush says so (Praise Be Unto Him).

      2. Hollywood literally is releasing a movie next month about elite liberals hunting and killing MAGA deplorables. They have a hash tag called punch a nazi. They advocate assaults with milkshakes and in every public space. They harass republican politicians and others at their homes demanding to stab their hearts out.

        So let’s go by actual actions and public desire over random biased questionnaires.

      3. Lone wackos do not equal “right wing terrorists.”

        1. And anyway, the recent Dayton mass killer considered himself a leftist, FWIW.

      4. I’m not sure that “consent of the governed” per the DoI is defined by winning elections by majority vote. I think it is more basic than that: when the people are generally satisfied with, and accept the legitimacy of, their government, there is “consent”. When widespread resistance to a government breaks out (as in the American Revolution), that itself is evidence of the lack of such consent. Nothing directly to do with elections.

      5. Jefferson was a strong proponent of the Constitution, to the point that Patrick Henry’s objection to it caused a lifelong split in their once very close relationship. Jefferson fully supported the electoral college and was opposed, as were most of the founding fathers to majority rule. The founding fathers designed the electoral college. Your entire statement lacks facts.

        1. Jefferson was a strong proponent of the Constitution

          Bullshit.

          “Consent of the governed is a core principle”, to both Rand and Jefferson. For Rand it applies, “The moral is the chosen” to a society.

          “The earth belongs to the living,” was Jefferson’s reason to oppose the ‘perpetual constitution’ sought by the Constitutional Convention. That cannot be, he wrote to Madison.

          True liberty, consent of the governed requires …. consent of the governed!

          His conclusion, letter to Madison from Paris

          Every constitution then, and every law, naturally expires at the end of 19 years. If it be enforced longer, it is an act of force, and not of right.

          The question Whether one generation of men has a right to bind another …-I set out on this ground, which I suppose to be self evident, “that the earth belongs in usufruct to the living”: that the dead have neither powers nor rights over it. … the rights of the whole can be no more than the sum of the rights of the individuals … no generation can contract debts greater than may be paid during the course of it’s own existence.

          They derive these rights not from their predecessors, but from nature.

          On similar ground it may be proved that no society can make a perpetual constitution, or even a perpetual law. The earth belongs always to the living generation. They may manage it then, and what proceeds from it, as they please, during their usufruct. They are masters too of their own persons, and consequently may govern them as they please.

          I link to proof, so you have ZERO credibility … unless you provide a credible source for your other assertions.

          P.S. Jefferson was not even in the country when the Constitutional Convention met. He was in France. as Ambassador.

          Any questions?

          1. Interestingly, your proof doesn’t actually disprove anything he said. It proves that he opposed the idea of a perpetual Constitution at the time that the US Constitution was being written, but doesn’t give any indication of how he felt about the final product, or whether he changed his mind about a perpetual Constitution at some point after he saw the final product.

            One indicator of whether he felt that the Constitution, as ratified and amended, was problematic would be whether or not he wrote in favor or opposition during the years after ratified. Any proof that soldiermedic is wrong about Jefferson’s support of the Constitution would have to come from his later writings.

      6. Ruffie, you are an ignorant MFer. You don’t even know how presidential elections work per the Constitution. Trump won legally.

        I don’t believe your stats about politically-baaed murders. Give us a citation. BTW, the FBI will release its report with the 2018 stats in September, so yours are prolly not official.

        Seriously, are you just a troll?

  1. McConnell’s party is up to the challenge of amping up the language in turn. Just weeks ago, Republicans sent chills down the spines of their opponents with calls to deport a group of left-wing members of Congress, most of whom were born and raised in the United States. They should “go back and help fix the totally broken and crime infested places from which they came,”

    Totally the same thing as saying she should be murdered. False equivelence for the win. Reason editorial rules are as follows

    1. If it reflects badly on the right, report the hell out of it as evidence of the innate evil of all non libertarian right wingers

    2. If it reflects badly on the left and can’t be ignored, find something on the right to equate it with and write a “pox on both houses” piece.

    It is so obvious I am left to wonder if they really think no one notices.

    1. “It is so obvious I am left to wonder if they really think no one notices.”

      We’ve all noticed, and most accept Reason’s Libertarian stance.

      1. So lying and false equivalence is a “Libertarian stance”? Big if true.

        1. You can find a less libertarian magazine if it bothers you so much. National Review is sufficiently right wing for you perhaps.

          1. National Review sucks even worse. Beyond that, it is not nearly as much fun to pick on their fanboys as it is to pick on reason fanboys like you.

            1. Reason is to be commended for allowing commenters like yourself to pick on their fanboys. Were you banned for picking on National Review fanboys?

              1. Trueman, you’re being deliberately obtuse. It isn’t clever or funny.

                Now fuck off.

                1. “Trueman, you’re being deliberately obtuse. ”

                  I am not. I was banned from National Review after commenting on an article I disagreed with. I assume others are banned for picking on National Review fanboys. perhaps John as well, who admits to picking on these fanboys and says the magazine sucks even worse.

                  1. “…I was banned from National Review after commenting on an article I disagreed with…”

                    This is trueman’s claim, try for a cite.
                    More likely, someone there got fed up with the constant stream of bullshit or sophistry and said “enough”.

                  2. Bullshit. I shit all over National Review all the time. I’ve been in extremely heated arguments with their readers too. My guess is you were either being particularly awful/threatening or you are straight-up lying.

                    1. “My guess is you were either being particularly awful/threatening or you are straight-up lying.”

                      Worse. I disagreed with an article posted there.

                2. “Trueman, you’re being deliberately obtuse. It isn’t clever or funny.”

                  Trueman’s got sophistry or bullshit; nothing else. You might just as well engage Hihn.

          2. National review is a neo-can rag run by pseudo-conservatives who do their level best to appease lunatic liberals.

            1. I haven’t read the National Review for quite a while now. Can you recommend a magazine or website that is for real conservatives who are not interested in appeasing lunatic liberals?

            2. “Pseudo-conservatives” LOL. I actually find more diversity of thought (w/in certain parameters) there than here (and less foul and abusive language in the Comments section.

              And I say that as someone who tends to lean more libertarian than classic conservative

          3. mtrueman, so you are telling John to go back to his own “country”, so to speak, because he came over here and criticized this one (Libertarian Land)? Hmmm…

        2. I mean, have you talked to libertarians/Libertarians?

          1. *shivers*

    2. As John demonstrates, American politics is not just dominated by rage. It is also dominated by butthurt.

      1. So telling the truth is butthurt? I guess that explains why you lie so much. Good to know.

    3. As long as you continue to click and generate revenue, they con’t really care if you notice that, or anything else.

      1. >>>click and generate revenue

        commenting w/o rtfa.

    4. I don’t think Tuccille was equating them. I think he was just pointing out that it’s vitriolic and unhelpful. The Republicans might be behind the times, but they love to gradually adopt the Democrats’ playbook. I don’t know if pointing it out when they practice dem-strategy-lite will actually slow them down, but it’s not inconceivable that it could serve as an example to libertarians of what they shouldn’t be doing.

      1. Fair point, although I have read Tuccille enough to not give him the benefit of the doubt like you do. The problem is that if you don’t go at the left on their terms and using their tactics, you lose. Losing for principle accomplishes nothing. That is the problem with evil, it forces you to either roll over and let it win or fight it but in the process end up using its methods.

        1. The problem is that if you don’t go at the left on their terms and using their tactics, you lose.

          I think you’re reducing the complexity of social dynamics too far. What you’re saying might be right in some cases, wrong in others. I think the current shift toward identity politics on the right is an example in the “wrong” column – it is training people on the right to never gain or to abandon critical thinking skills (in addition to the variety of other problems we might attach – “rage” and what have you). On the left, there are already about two generations of intelligent people in that category. Losing the remaining potential intelligent conservatives will not be a boon to anyone, let alone libertarians.

          I’d say a solid portion of Reason’s worst “reason” falls into that same category – mimicking leftist rhetorical tropes even when they support proper libertarian ideals, thereby undermining the foundations of the movement.

          “The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended.” – Frédéric Bastiat

          1. How about not fighting at all? The GOP has constantly either retreated when called racist/sexist, etc or tried to ignore it. This worked so well for McCain and Romney, didn’t it? Or for the country, when Bush retreated from reforming lending rules mandated by the government on subprime mortgages. Everyone knew by 2005 that it was an unsustainable bubble but all the Democrats had to do was scream racism and Bush dropped it like a hot potato. Then somehow he gets blamed for the 2008 recession. Ryan tried to reform Social Security, a few grandma’s being thrown from the cliff commercials later the GOP drops it even though everyone is aware we need to do something. The same with Medicare, Medicaid, Student Loan and welfare reform.

          2. Gotta agree with John & Soldiermedic, the liberals are the ones continuously pushing boundaries, and the Republicans tend to merely adapt out of necessity. It’s how we got Trump in the first place, he’s merely a republican version of the democrats who spent 2008/12 coating the GOP candidates as vile racists and sexists and bigots, etc etc.

            It’s the exact same thing that happens in war when one side doesn’t respect the laws of war. You either stop playing “fair”, or you are ok with being at a disadvantage, which when we’re talking human lives involved, most people aren’t. It’s why you have conservatives in Portland showing up to protests with guns and body armor, because they know they’re going to be attacked for having an opinion, and they know the cops won’t step in until it becomes a full-blown brawl, because the people at the top are playing sides.

            1. With regard to “continually pushing boundaries” there are quite a few liberals of my acquaintance who talk about deliberately pushing the Overton window toward their desired outcome, without realizing that Overton himself described the window moving along a continuum from more freedom to less freedom. As someone who focuses more on the freedom continuum, rather than the left-right continuum, I have noticed that most of the positions they are pushing to make more acceptable seem move the window toward less freedom.

          3. I never said not to fight. I’m saying that adopting the same tactics, or more specifically, certain individual tactics, is not an effective way to fight, but rather to undermine some of one’s own positions. To use the first example soldiermedic76 mentioned (racist/sexist), embracing identity politics doesn’t help fight those claims – it solidifies the memetic underpinning, strengthening opponents’ rhetoric. If all you’re concerned about is the number of seats with Rs and Ds next to them, that might still have some temporary value.

            I thought libertarians were actually concerned with principle and sound policy and freedom, though, and strengthening the identity politics zeitgeist isn’t going to help us one iota.

            1. Principles are great unless you never win. Has the GOP actually given into identity politics or been forced into it by their adversaries setting the rules?

            2. Dude, none of these guys are libertarians. soldiermedic76, John, last of the shitlords, Sevo — all these idiots are hardcore partisan shills who identify as “a conservative” (rather than a person who happens to hold mostly “conservative” views).

              These guys are literally the problem, along with their analogs on the left.

              1. I have identified as Libertarian leaning conservative. Speaking of partisan shills, how do you describe someone who ridicules and labels people who don’t follow their preferred political leanings? Casting stones in a glass house Marshall?

                1. Marshal is 100% correct about the names he mentioned.
                  If not for your gigantic error on that, the two of you are defending nearly identical values and principles.
                  ,

              2. And I would hardly describe myself as a partisan shills, I’ve criticized Trump, hell I didn’t even vote for him. But it is easy for you to label others (besides I believe I normally describe my political leanings as conservative leaning, strict Constitutionalist and libertarian-ish).

                1. Yeah, Ron Paul says he’s a strict Constitutionalist too.
                  But so do all proponents of KKK-style States Rights, masquerading as federalism.

                  1. It’s so much fun when people toss out accusations like this. If one is going to make a claim about what someone else is a proponent of, he needs to provide evidence to support his claim. Soldiermedic can no more prove that he isn’t a proponent of KKK-style States Rights than you can prove that you’ve never imagined Tuccille wearing a tutu. He can certainly like to comments that he has made which tend to indicate that he isn’t, but that no more disproves your claim than any comments you could point to that tend to indicate that you don’t know what Tuccille looks like, hate tutus, and have a terrible ability to visualize things.

    5. chills down the spines of their opponents with calls to deport a group of left-wing members of Congress”

      false as in fake news they never called to deport them Trump said go to these countries then come back with answers

      1. Not to mention that the so-called “chills” are an affect. Their vocal outrage and offense is entirely theatrical to score political points.

        1. Certainly the chills are an affect for the members of Congress who were referenced. But there are plenty of genuine chills from folks who actually believe the line that there were calls for deportation. Not that their chills are significant, except in possibly causing them to join in with the 18% who think that violence is justified if Trump wins the election.

    6. “go back and help fix the totally broken and crime infested places from which they came,” is not calling for deportation.

      It is an exhortation to the ungrateful harpies to clean up their bedroom and make their beds before they try to remake America into the nasty failed states they so admire.

    7. McConnell and other conservatives just had their accounts on twitter suspended for posting video of the protestors outside McConnells home.

  2. At the prospect of being at the mercy of a temporary majority of their political enemies, Americans clearly are brought to despair. Anarchy sounds like a fair alternative to being governed by either Republicans or Democrats empowered to turn their mutual loathing into official policy.

    We were governed by Republicans controlling the Congress and the WhiteHouse from 2017 until January 2019, just how did their “loathing” manifest itself?

    1. I’m pretty sure they deported you John. Didn’t you get the memo?

  3. “In the wake of two high-profile mass shootings over the weekend, the conversation got a little vitriolic in America. Again.”

    And the El Paso shooter says, “I win”.

  4. Several particular circumstances in America also tend to make the power of the majority not only predominant, but irresistible,” de Tocqueville wrote in his often prescient 19th-century study of the United States. He warned that majoritarian dominance would breed conflict.

    “If liberty is ever lost in America, it will be necessary to lay the blame on the omnipotence of the majority that will have brought minorities to despair and will have forced them to appeal to physical force. Then you will see anarchy, but it will arrive as a consequence of despotism.

    I never have understood the regard that Alexis de Tocqueville is held. That statement is nonsense. The entire American political system is built around preventing the tyranny of the majority. There is nothing about the historic American character, which its commitment to individualism that supports the idea that it makes the majority irresistible.

    1. Perhaps if you don’t understand the regard with which de Tocqueville is held, the defect lies with you rather than de Tocqueville. I think that is one of the hallmarks of conservative and libertarian philosophy, the wisdom and humility of self-doubt in one’s own knowledge.

      It’s not as if the idea that democracy inevitably devolves into mob rule was original with de Tocqueville – Plato said much the same thing over a hundred years before him.

      And you haven’t been paying attention if you don’t think the tyranny of the majority is right here, right now and we’re only about one election away from the triumph of the tyrants.

      1. I understand him quite well. Unlike you, I also understand this country and its political and social conditions. This allows me to realize that he is just wrong about a lot of things. How you think that the US having a Republic and an entire political system designed around the idea that pure democracies always degenerate into tyranny is my not realizing that it is an old and generally true statement that pure democracies degenerate into tyranny is a mystery known only to the voices in your head.

        It is pretty clear that you are dumb as fucking post. Why don’t you stop spoofing and go away. You don’t understand what is going on and you never will

      2. every election in this country is a triumph of tyrants. Politics is nothing more than keeping the status quo in spending and divvying up the stolen loot for which preferred constituents get what. And also indiscriminately killing dirty foreigners for reasons.

        1. Lazy hackneyed cliche thinking. Try harder.

      3. Plato said much the same thing over a hundred years before him

        Gotta love understatement.

  5. The left swore that if Trump were elected, violence would increase. He was and the left promptly went out and proved it.

    1. They are all right wingers Sevo. Even if they are committed socialists, radical environmentalists and Antifa supporters, they become “right wing” the moment they engage in violence. Don’t you know the rules?

      1. You can lie here and you can lie to yourself but we all know conservatism has become just a bunch of violent shoot-em-up racist rednecks.

        1. The Dayton shooter was a leftist just like you. The El Paso shooter was a radical environmentalist who wanted to end immigration because the population is too high.

          The facts are what they are. Everyone knows it and your lying isn’t going to change it. Now go away you disgusting pervert. Why are you into child porn? How did you learn how to access it?

          1. You really gonna argue about which shooter was a leftist and which was a rightist, and whether there were more leftist or rightist shooters? What the fuck is wrong with you, John?

            1. There is no argument. The shooters are what they are. The guy in Dayton was an antifa supporters. The guy in El Paso was a radical environmentalist. What that means is debatable. But their beliefs are a fact. What the fuck is wrong with you not to understand that?

              1. “The guy in El Paso was a radical environmentalist”

                “This attack is a response to the Hispanic invasion of Texas…I am simply defending my country from cultural and ethnic replacement brought on by an invasion”.

                John, are you worried that trying to be objective for maybe 5 minutes would cause a life-threatening injury?

                1. Why was the guy worried about the Hispanic invasion? Because he believed there were too many people who were destroying the environment. His manifesto said since people will not give up their consumer lifestyles the only solution is to have fewer people.

                  Can you be honest for once in your life? Just read the words for what they mean instead of what you want them to mean?

                  1. No, you idiot. He specifically said those immigrants would turn Texas over to Democrats electorally – which didn’t want.

                  2. “Just read the words for what they mean instead of what you want them to mean?”

                    So you’re reading “cultural and ethnic replacement brought on by an invasion” to mean that he was worried about clean water and endangered species? LOL.

                    1. He also said “the solution is fewer people”. Maybe parsing the words of a lunatic for the purpose of blaming your political enemies for murder is a stupid thing to do. Just a thought.

                      The guy was a radical environmentalist and believed in racial separation. It is what it is.

                    2. His manifest was all over the place, much like the Christ Church shooter. Candace Owens had a guest on yesterday who do this may be on purpose, by having some many different, conflicting trigger issues and statements in their manifestos, these spree killers get more publicity because both sides rush to classify the shooter as a member of the other tribe. It is masterful trolling.

              2. “Radical environmentalist”

                Which does not exclude a far-right neo-Nazi belief system at all. There is a subset there which is heavily into organic farming, sustainability and all that. It goes back to certain Nazi concepts about reverence for nature, returning to the land Volkish movement.

            2. “You really gonna argue about which shooter was a leftist and which was a rightist, and whether there were more leftist or rightist shooters? What the fuck is wrong with you, John?”

              No offense, but John didn’t write “You can lie here and you can lie to yourself but we all know conservatism has become just a bunch of violent shoot-em-up racist rednecks.”

        2. “You can lie here and you can lie to yourself but we all know conservatism has become just a bunch of violent shoot-em-up racist rednecks.”

          Because there’s been no violence from the left at all? That’s the response you’re making to this article? The Punch a Nazi, Shoot up a Congressional Baseball Practice, Antifa, Throwing Firebombs at a Concentration Camp Left? Geez you’re a partisan dumbass.

          1. All your examples are pretty weak violence – no deaths and one injured Congressman compared to the hundreds of kills by domestic right wing terrorists.

            1. “All your examples are pretty weak violence – no deaths and one injured Congressman compared to the hundreds of kills by domestic right wing terrorists.”

              Putz. Firing dozens of shots at people and throwing bombs and putting people in the hospital with brain injuries constitutes “pretty weak violence”. You’re not opposed to violence, you’re just playing the My Team Is Angelic and the Other Team is Evil Game. Just another run-of-the-mill zealous hack.

              1. compared to the hundreds of kills by domestic right wing terrorists.

                Idiot.

                1. “Only violence that kills somebody is really violence.”. Intellectually, you’re a joke.

                  1. You’re trying to equate hundreds of rightwing terrorist kill-shots with some lefty pushing and shoving (plus one injured Congressman).

                    Sad for you.

                    1. “Concussing people with bike locks and bricks and throwing incendiary devices at a facility full of people is merley lefty pushing and shoving”. Did Progressive Prosecutor Kamala Harris feed you that line?

                      Like I said, you’re not opposed to political violence. Violence that comes from the Correct Side makes you happy. Calling out someone for defending violence while personally defending other violence….there’s a word for that.

                    2. I think the word is “reason”. Sounds familiar…

                    3. Reason, try again. The fact that the left hasn’t killed anyone yet (though the Dayton killer certainly looks like a died in the wool progressive and self proclaimed supporter of antifa) is pure luck not because the violence is any less potentially deadly. And if we are going to go back decades, can we mention the weather underground and similar groups?

                    4. If we’re going back decades, you can add something like 100,000,000 to the left’s bag.

                    5. The fact that the left hasn’t killed anyone yet

                      What are you talking about? The BLM killer in Dallas killed people.

                      The Vegas shooter killed people

                      The Pulse nightclub. The San Bernadino killers, The Boston Marathon.

                      And yes, they’re ‘the left’–of they’re at the left’s marches screaming the left’s slogans they’re the left’s .

              2. Hundreds? Over what time frame? Citation?

                You’re really downplaying a guy who could have easily assassinated several Republican Congressmen, if he were better with a gun and ine Congressman did not happen to bring security with him. They were trapped in a fenced-in field.

            2. So, left-wing violence is okay because leftists are incompetent?

              1. +1
                The baseball game shooter didn’t manage to kill people, so it counts as less violent. OK then!

            3. How about the BLM supporters who ambush cops?

        3. Haha. Yeah. White people are terrible, eh Sarah?

          Don’t change a thing, girl.

      2. “Don’t you know the rules?”

        Sorry, what did you say? Did you mention the progressive’s rules? Now, listen. Bit of advice. Tell me the truth if you think you know it. Lay down the law if you’re feeling brave. But, NEVER, EVER,TELL ME THE RULES!!

        (With apologies to Steven Moffat.)

  6. de Tocqueville wrote in his often prescient 19th-century study of the United States.

    Yeah, but Borat is the new de Tocqueville and America is not looking so good.

    1. Shut up you illiterate moron. Like you have ever read anything in your life. Kiddy porn stories don’t count.

    2. Well, turd, we’re very happy that you’re the new village idiot; when you’re not abysmally stupid, you can be amusing.

    3. We get it Kiddie Raper, you hate America. You progturds have always hated America, or anything good or decent. The only things you love are communism, or getting up in some little boy’s backside.

  7. The difference too me is while the right is comfortable targeting talking heads and politicians for their vitriol, it seems like the left is more and more targeting just supporters of republicans. See, Covington, AOC cutout, Deplorable comments, MAGA hat assaults, Antifa, Castro doxxing donors, Cake/pizza gay marriage and others. The right might do this too but I just don’t see the equivalence as the above is condoned and supported by 90% of the media networks.

    1. The only people Donald Trump has demonized have been politicians, foreign nationals and talking heads basically anyone putting their head in the public sphere. While lefty politicians/talking heads are demonizing actual non public figures. I think that one is clearly worse than the other.

      1. ” I think that one is clearly worse than the other.”

        And that makes you a victim, right?

        1. Attacking people who can defend themselves is not the same as sending the mob after people who can’t.

          Your not understanding that makes you stupid, right?

          1. “Attacking people who can defend themselves is not the same as sending the mob after people who can’t. ”

            Not the same, you say… I’m not sure I understand.

            1. It seems you are purposely misunderstanding.

                1. No, it shows a level of intellectual dishonesty and immaturity on your part. But you be you I guess. If your happy being a peurile test go for it.

                  1. “No, it shows a level of intellectual dishonesty and immaturity on your part.”

                    Yes, I am far from perfect. But I’m not convinced the game is worth the candle. Intellectual honesty and maturity take their toll, and dishonesty and immaturity are acceptable here. soldiermedic76, I try harder with you, because you seem to be generally interested in what I write and are smart enough to see my intentions, clouded though they may be by fancy word play and sarcasm.

                  2. This is trueman; might as well engage Hihn:

                    mtrueman|8.30.17 @ 1:42PM|#
                    “Spouting nonsense is an end in itself.”

          2. Nicholas Sandman is a public figure – why, I’ve seen him all over the news…..

        2. not at all. Nothing has changed at all as I stay out of retarded political food fights. In fact show me one person whose life has significantly changed for the better or worse because of Trump and I’ll show you a liar. With the exception of all the prisoners who sentences he’s freed and lessened. All they had to do was not go full retard and let the carnival barker just be himself and they would be sitting pretty come 2020. Now despite my objections to Trump I’m probably going to support him unless the Dems pull Gaddard or Williamson out of their ass. And the only reason I’m considering them is because I’m so fucking sick of the butthurt at 11 from the dems and media I’d have to consider capitulating to stop the fucking screaming over spilt milk.

          1. “See, Covington, AOC cutout, Deplorable comments, MAGA hat assaults, Antifa, Castro doxxing donors, Cake/pizza gay marriage and others. ”

            You are in the thick of one retarded food fight, but don’t seem to realize it. You are even considering voting for Trump, of all people.

            ” In fact show me one person whose life has significantly changed for the better or worse because of Trump and I’ll show you a liar.”

            Ivana Trump? She gets to travel around the world at tax payer expense since daddy got president.

            1. “Ivana Trump? She gets to travel around the world at tax payer expense since daddy got president.”

              The Kennedys and Clintons called, they’d like you to stop pointing that out.

              1. The Kennedys and Clintons haven’t benefited from Trump’s president. Ivana has, a cushy government job, and lots of free things besides.

                1. Yes, that’s a huge benefit for someone who can already afford to travel around the world and buy the ‘free things’ she’s purportedly getting.

            2. Fuck off loser.

            3. How many private flights did the Obama’s usually take because they never traveled together?

              1. Obamas. Still having trouble with apostrophes, I see.

                I saw 3 Obamas on a plane riding for free!
                I was appalled by the look on Obama’s face as he freely rode the plane.

                Its is trickier. It’s is short for it is. Its is the possessive.
                The dog wags its tail.
                I

                1. Since you have tried in the past to correct a spelling error (in this case my phone changed it) and actually made a fucking error yourself that I had to correct, I would be careful casting those stones in your glass house. You didn’t recognize that it is can be contracted to it’s and tried to tell me it should be its, your attempt at grammatical superiority is misplaced.v

                  1. I don’t mind you or anyone else correcting whatever errors I make, They are my responsibility and I won’t blame my phone or computer.

                    1. Pointing out grammar mistakes in a politcal discussion seems at best a pyrrhic victory.
                      Even if you win on the grammar points, you still come off looking like a pedantic asshole.

                      Who the hell doesn’t make a typo or a grammatical error every now and then?

                    2. I’d rather correct grammar mistakes than discuss Obama and his plane rides.

                    3. I was pointing out that relatives riding for free is nothing new. The Obamas routinely travelled separately, even to the same destination. As for discussing grammar and spelling errors, I tend to find those who do it routinely do so because they lack the ability to debate effectively. I’ve seen some real blatant grammatical errors in top peer reviewer journals. Hell, one of my articles they even misspelled my name, and no one caught it until it was in print.

                    4. Well, I for one blame your parents and your teachers for the voluminous crap you post….

                2. Did you not understand what he was saying? If you did, he communicated successfully.

                  Unless you are someone actually responsible for correcting his writing (like a teacher or parent), all stepping in and doing so does is confirm that you understood him and mark you as a pedantic asshole.

            4. Ivanka

              At least spell it right.

              1. And in this case, unlike mtrueman’s pedantic correction, this one actually clarifies something that a casual observer might misunderstand, since there is a person named Ivana Trump, and it would be significant if Trump’s EX-wife were getting free rides at the taxpayers’ expense.

          2. “I’m so fucking sick of the butthurt at 11 from the dems and media I’d have to consider capitulating to stop the fucking screaming over spilt milk.”

            The red pill is tasty

  8. I don’t agree with the premise. Politics won’t drive people to violence if they weren’t prone to violence before. IMHO, people are more likely to use outside forces like political parties, religious orders, etc. as the justification for the violence they’d like to inflict.

    As for the vitriol? It’s really easy and there are no consequences for being an internet tough guy. You can say mean things, and feel like a hero.

    Are political opponents “ignorant and spiteful?” You bet! Willfully ignorant…ignoring any information that runs counter to their current beliefs. Spiteful…more concerned with “destroying” or “owning” their opponents than actually winning a debate of meaningful policy differences. And, let’s face it, the choices of HRC and DT as presidential candidates had a great deal to do with how the political opponents reviled them. That’s spite.

    1. I don’t agree with the premise. Politics won’t drive people to violence if they weren’t prone to violence before. IMHO, people are more likely to use outside forces like political parties, religious orders, etc. as the justification for the violence they’d like to inflict.

      You are right. And the way that happens is people convince themselves that their opponents are evil. This allows them to rationalize their desire to harm them as “fighting evil”.

      There is one other factor at play here, narcissism. People have gotten into a habit of building themselves up by building up their enemies. If my enemy is just someone who means well but is mistaken, my objection to them is not that important. But if they are Nazis and White Supremacists, then I am fighting a noble fight against evil and am important. And it rationalizes my desire to inflict violence.

      1. ” And the way that happens is people convince themselves that their opponents are evil.”

        You are a master of irony, John. Never change.

        1. You are an idiot who doesn’t know what words mean. I don’t think you are evil and never said you were. I think you are stupid.

          1. I think is evil. However, shooting up a place filled with assholes, like him doesn’t accomplish anything.

            Forcing a lot of them out of the country would solve the problem. Criminalizing Marxist radicalism would solve the problem.

        2. I did think this was kind of funny. Usually I agree with John when it comes to arguments between you two. But I can’t count how many times John has called all Democrats “evil.”

          Plus, I don’t think I’ve ever seen John be humble, acknowledge that he is working with incomplete information or even change his mind on any subject. He’s one of the most confident people on this website.

      2. I have never seen conservatives championing “punching commies”.

        Could’ve sworn I saw progs ciampioning “punching Nazis”.

        Both, mind you, are abhorrent and murderous ideologies. But one gets celebrated by the left while the other is condemned by all.

        1. Conservatism is progressivism in the slow lane- MM

        2. I have seen Last of the Shitlords advocating for systematic killing of “progressives” here, and far too consistently for it to be brushed off as mere invective, or edgy trolling. It might have been those things the first time, but after dozens of times it’s hard to take it as anything but serious advocacy. At the very least he’s trying to lower inhibitions to the idea through repetition.

    2. I don’t agree with the premise. Politics won’t drive people to violence if they weren’t prone to violence before.

      Politics, like religion, can create false justification for violence … in pursuit of a supposed “higher good,” a manipulation which has been deployed throughout human history, tracing to the early Old Testament (the appalling mass genocide of the Canaanites)

  9. Chances are, the thought of being ruled by evil people fills you with dread.

    Fortunately for most libertarians this is a given so the dread is more a din.

  10. “By fall of 2018, an Axios poll found that roughly half of the surveyed Democrats and Republicans alike considered each other “ignorant” and “spiteful.””

    Finally, both sides are right about something. See? They can do it if they try………

    1. ^ this

  11. Outside the home of Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky), they wished for somebody to “stab the motherfucker in the heart.”

    And they were also chanting “murder the turtle”.

    1. Yertle in hiding.

  12. Rage Rules American Politics
    And it may be making violence more likely.

    This is not a repeat from 1776 or 1861. While compromise may be a fine and wonderful thing, sometimes there are differences of opinion where compromise simply is not an option. There’s no compromising with people who are fanatical in their intent to see you dead or enslaved.

    1. No there is not. I do think, however, such people are still a minority and most of this is a small minority using the internet to exaggerate its influence. That would be very bad if we didn’t have healthy legal and political institutions like 1917 Russia or 1789 France. But I think ours, while not in great health, are healthy enough to withstand this bout of insanity.

      1. Well, media I think is necessary to combat this and our media is amongst the worst out there.

    2. There’s no compromising with people who are fanatical in their intent to see you dead or enslaved.

      And there you have it, since it applies equally to both parties.
      u

  13. the mostly smiling chick in the rose colored glasses is Rage?

  14. The American right wing is enabling a dual crisis: gun violence and white supremacy

    While guns kill tens of thousands every year, white nationalists are using them more and more to carry out their terrorist attacks. A New York Times report showed how murders by white nationalists are not only growing around the world – they are also becoming more and more connected. And the right wing in the United States are helping these terrorists by leading the way with hateful, racist language and policies that terrorists cite in explaining their murderous acts.

    Trump has lit a match to this powder keg. Rightwing support for white nationalists can now be seen weekly in the Oval Office. Trump regularly refers to immigrants and minorities as part of an “invasion” and “infestation”, fueling the white nationalist conspiracy theory of the “great replacement” in which “other” people are supposedly trying to replace white Americans. In Charlottesville in 2017, white supremacists murdered Heather Heyer at a neo-Nazi rally where people were chanting “Jews will not replace us” – after which Trump called them “very fine people”. At a rally in May, Trump laughed when an attendee suggested shooting immigrants. It is not difficult to understand why the alleged killer in El Paso cited the “great replacement” conspiracy as a justification for the massacre.

    https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/aug/07/gun-violence-white-supremacy-right-wing

    1. Oh, yeah, The Guardian. That’s certainly an objective source. What, you couldn’t find an AOC tweet to quote from?

      1. Every word is true.

        1. Yeah, but unfortunately the sentences aren’t.

        2. You look down your nose at people who read Breitbart and watch Fox News while reading partisan rags like the Guardian. Your fucking picture should be in the dictionary beside the word hypocrite. Bet you have a Rachel Maddow shrine in your closet……

          1. “Bet you have a Rachel Maddow shrine in your closet”

            Seems turd favors those a bit younger…

            1. “Seems turd favors those a bit younger…”

              Yeah, probably the little Climate Change girl from Scandinavia.

              1. I always figured Kiddie Raper like little boys.

        3. Sarah, you should know that losers ALWAYS exploit the ad hominem fallacy, because they cannot deal with actual issues, .

          Tribal loyalist are the worst, both left and right.

          The most blatant example was Trump’s totally psychotic lie about Charlottesville, that the “alt-left” initiated the violence by attacking his fascist/racist minions with clubs, which is easily proven a lie by the videos … which, of course were NEVER shown on Pravda Fox, of course.

    2. Oh, NO!!!!!!!!!!! The Guardian!
      Why don’t you cite Krugman?
      Fuck off, you pathetic piece of shit.

      1. We can always tell when Sevo has LOST on the actual issue.
        More mindless assaults from the thug.

    3. “The American right wing is enabling a dual crisis: gun violence and white supremacy”

      Man, trying to prove the writer’s point here?

    4. “While guns kill tens of thousands every year, white nationalists are using them more and more to carry out their terrorist attacks.”

      So we should hope they go back to fertilizer and diesel fuel?

    5. Ok, so white nationalist have murdered around 50 in 2019 (or 2018) from CBS news in the U.S. But, what, there were 17,000 or so homicides in the U.S. in 2018 of which 1/5 (or more) where in Chicago.
      So, where should the anger and angst go? Don’t like white supremacists but doesn’t really look like they are the big killers they are made out to be (yes, 50 is too many). Think our focus should be someplace else. But, that would just mean someone would have to face the fact that their policies haven’t worked very well over the past years.

      1. Most white nationalist are indoctrinated in jail doing hard time. They are much more likely to commit murder with or without their beliefs.

      2. Clever diversion by bvandyke!

    6. Most handgun deaths in the US are suicides, so The Guardian thinks suicides are now white nationalist violence. F’ing brilliant…

      Also, they repeat the lie that Trump said the neo-nazis were “good people”. To think this, then you have to think that Trump is praising antifa, too. Look at the whole quote. Jake Tapper reported it correctly, but the rest of the MSM pushes the lie.

  15. “Chances are, the thought of being ruled by evil people fills you with dread.”

    Oh, I don’t know. We got through the eight years of Emperor Hussein somehow.

  16. Also can I just say that Radley Balko getting a case of TDS so fucking badly he doesn’t see a problem with Castro doxxing republican donors is fucking sad. It makes me almost want to disregard a ton of his work as someone so butthurt over carnival barker and conman who got elected running for the the position of chief carnival barker and conman can’t really be trusted to not be biased in his anticop work.

    1. I don’t think Balko believes any of the good stuff he wrote. He was just lying for a paycheck.

  17. I actually wish Bailey would weigh in on the topic.

    We are broadly less violent as a society than we ever used to be. Politics, being a subset of that, is not more violent than it used to be. Burr? Booth? Shrank? Hinkley? How about Jim Jones? David Koresh? Tim McVeigh? The Chicago Race Riots? The ’68 DNC Convetion? The LA Riots? The Weather Underground? 9/11?

    Certainly politics isn’t immune to violence and we aren’t guaranteed to be safer tomorrow than yesterday or today, but the idea that violence was somehow under control on Aug. 2nd or Nov. 6, 2016 is pretty obviously between illusion and delusion.

    1. It’s mostly contained to social media and occasional larpers. Most people don’t really care about any of this bullshit thank god. I just can’t get over how much hatred and contempt the corporate press has for the average american. I’m sure it’s always been there, but good god. I mean politics has always been a clown show so we shouldn’t be surprised when a total clown wins. But the level of effort they seem to be in promoting violence and fomenting a race war/culture war between Trump supporters and Democratic voters is something new to me at least.

  18. There is also the problem that there was no call for them to be deported. Trump did say that (this seems particularly directed at Omar) that they should go back and fix the problems where they came from before ripping the US. One can be critical of what was actually said without putting words into anyone’s mouth.

    1. It’s all they have Mickey. If drumpf was so bad they wouldn’t have to lie and misrepresent his words but they can’t. Even when he says something retarded on it’s own merit they can’t just let it stand they have overreact to it apocalypticly. It’s ridiculous and tiresome.

      1. It is also ironic in an article decrying the “rage” in politics, as if that is not stoking it higher.

      2. Merit is racist, I heard that in sociology class

    2. “Trump did say that (this seems particularly directed at Omar) that they should go back and fix the problems where they came from before ripping the US and then come back and show us how it’s done.

      FIFY. BTW, nothing in there about deporting anyone.

      From the tweets:

      ” Why don’t they go back and help fix the totally broken and crime infested places from which they came. Then come back and show us how….

      ….it is done. “

      1. Fucked up the italics. Sorry.

    3. Mickey, they still claim he said white supremacists were “fine people” by cutting off, literally, the NEXT SENTENCE HE SAID in a video clip.

      Lying is all they have.

      1. Well MSNBC did have an analysis on yesterday that stated Trump ordered the flags at half last until 8/8 as a sign to white supremacists that he supports them. Supposedly 8/8 is a significant date to Nazis because it stands for Heil Hitler because H is the 8th letter of the alphabet. Or some nonsense like that. So by ordering flags at half last until Thursday, he is making everyone raise their flags at sunset on 8/8 to honor Hitler or some shit like that. Brian Williams played right along and called the analyst words “chilling”.

        1. That’s the great thing about paranormal BS like numerology; all you have to do is fiddle with the numbers long enough and you can claim whatever the hell you want.

  19. “Considering your political opponents “ignorant,” “spiteful,” and “evil” is a bigger deal than just having negative views about them because it raises the stakes in the fight over the vast power of the modern state.”

    Hmm, no concerns that conservative and moderates will engage in progressive and conservative media while progressives engage in progressive media almost exclusively?

    Seems like conservatives have legitimate reasons to dislike progressives based on their own words. Progs hate what they THINK conservatives are.

    1. Hayek hated conservatives. He wrote that conservatives are dim, stupid, and reluctant to embrace evolution in general.

      Hayek was correct.

      1. Again, proving the writer’s point. Good job.

        Note, progressives, to many conservatives, Palin’s buttplug and all of you are fairly similar.

        1. Hayek was a progressive? Hilarious.

          That is as stupid as LovesTrumpsTinyMushroomDick1789 calling Penn Jilette a progressive.

          You Conservatives are truly stupid.

          1. Then that makes you brain dead. As we all have vastly superior intellect relative to you and your ilk. You worthless, retarded buggerer of schoolboys.

          2. “Hayek was a progressive? Hilarious.”

            What is the version of Reason you’re reading like? Is it more stable? The one the REST of us are reading is kinda terrible, but your alternate version might be better.

            “That is as stupid as LovesTrumpsTinyMushroomDick1789 calling Penn Jilette a progressive.

            You Conservatives are truly stupid.”

            Using your idiocy to attack others is a solid, SOLID strategy.

      2. If you actually read Hayek, rather than lifting quotes of him, then you would know the conservatives he was speaking of were people like Bismarck or Hindenburg. Not conservatism in the American sense, which sought to conserve a classical liberal tradition.

        1. Bullshit. US conservatives are worse, They are Bible-beating Big Government war-loving rednecks.

          1. So you are the expert? Most conservatives I know (about 90% of my acquaintances and even the majority of the Democrats tend to be pretty fucking conservative) hate big Government. It might be because once you’ve dealt with the USDA and Bureau of Land Management, not to mention the military and VA, you realize how inept and power hungry the damn Government is.

      3. Hayek wasn’t addressing American conservatives… you have the context completely wrong..

        1. He has constructed a straw man conservative.

  20. The more petty the stakes, the more vicious the politics.

  21. As that Robby Soave’s high school picture?

  22. “Americans have a lot of work to do, and that work starts with calling those you disagree with politically murderers,” joked the satire site The Babylon Bee in response to the heated verbiage.

    Snopes debunked that.

    1. Snopes debunked that.

      That the Bee said it. That Americans have a lot of work to do calling their political rivals murderers was found to be factually true.

      1. She lies.
        The raging hatred and bigotry on these comments pages prove her wrong.

          1. MORE proof!!!

              1. MORE PROOF!!!
                More bullying (that KEEPS failing).

  23. “just died,” a paper published this year shows a shift toward acceptance of political violence.

    By “paper” you must mean the newspaper shifting towards acceptance of political violence?

    1. Literacy much? Trump encourages it and rewards it — dating to his
      morally revolting defense of racists and neo-nazis at Charlottesville … encouraging and cheering violence at his rallies, and even offering to pay the legal fees of his thug for assaulting people.

      And here’s the proof that will be angrily denied, again.

      Now Trump’s totally shameless lie about Charlottesville, sucking up to white supremacists and neo-nazies. Bad enough that he said both sides were to blame. But he also went bat-shit crazy, saying the counter-protesters charged the nazis, swinging clubs. UNDENIABLE proof that he’s INSANE.

      Trump LIES. The initial assault in Charlottesville– Nazis and white supremacists attacking peaceful protesters with clubs
      “Alt-Left” standing peacefully, no visible clubs or bats.
      Alt-Right Fascists/Racists crash into them en masse, swinging clubs.
      Fascists are carrying the same shields as cops in riot gear. The motherfuckers CAME for violence.

      Shame on Trump and ANYONE who defends lies, hatred, bigotry and aggression.

      These are Racists and Jew-Haters.
      Ivanka and Jerod are Jewish.
      Trump threw his own daughter under a bus. SHAMEFUL.

      Left – Right = Zero
      Libertarians have said that for 50 years. A growing majority of Americans now agree.
      As the “traditional” left and right shrink toward extinction, roaring like dinosaurs, chirping like dodo birds.

      Now hear the sneering of jack-booted thugs …

        1. Since we know who he is, can we get him committed?

      1. Can you cite Trump’s statement on it.

        The ENTIRE statement?

        We’ll wait.

        1. THANK YOU FOR ASKING!

          Can you cite Trump’s statement on it.
          The ENTIRE statement?
          We’ll wait.

          (smirk) I’ve got BETTER!!
          The actual video …Trump’s own voice … stating what I PROVED was a PSYCHOPATHIC LIE
          youtube.com/watch?v=xgOfyqy1r2o

          President Hitler
          “What about the alt left that came charging at, as you say, at the alt right? Do they have any assemblage of guilt? What about the fact that they came charging with clubs in their hands swinging clubs? Do they have any problem? I think they do,”

          Will you now claim the video is “fake news” — created by George Soros for MSNBC, using a Trump impersonator?
          (lol)

          ABSOLUTE AND UNDENIABLE PROOF!
          TRUMP IS A FUCKING FASCIST ,.. LYING TO DEFEND NAZI AND RACIST VIOLENCE …

          Your turn!
          Do you even care?
          Do you have the BALLS to denounce Trump’s shameful lies?

          Anything else?

          1. Easier version of the PROOF LINK
            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xgOfyqy1r2o

            Plus all his Fake News insults … as he make a total asshole of himself.

              1. Laughing at the PROVEN loser

          2. ““What about the alt left that came charging at, as you say, at the alt right? Do they have any assemblage of guilt? What about the fact that they came charging with clubs in their hands swinging clubs? Do they have any problem? I think they do,””

            What, precisely, was false there? The leftists DIDN’T have weapons? News to anybody who covered it.

            “Oh I have an edited YT link”…I just have all of the news reports, none favorable to the nationalists.

            You’re pretty bad at this. Not surprisingly.

            1. What, precisely, was false there?

              SEE THE VIDEO!!!!
              https://reason.com/2019/08/07/rage-rules-american-politics/#comment-7884974

              The leftists DIDN’T have weapons? News to anybody who covered it.

              The video PROVES you full of shit.

              Now a psycho liar.

                1. Sevo is PISSED by ABSOLUTE VIDEO PROOF.

            1. Sevo is PISSED by undeniable video proof that Trump DEFENDED neo-nazis and racists … as a lying sack of shit.
              https://reason.com/2019/08/07/rage-rules-american-politics/#comment-7884974

              Just like Sevo and his ilk.

  24. To my taste, gun control advocates are hard to beat for pure nastiness,

    (LOL) For absolute nastiness, nothing can top the Reason.com commentariat, for the oppression, bullying and punishment of opposing views …. as sanctioned, nurtured and defended by reason.com.

    Luckily, reason.com mostly fails at both web traffic and comments, because he dominant alt-right mentality would further cripple libertarian support … where the libertarian label is rejected by over 91% of libertarians. (Per Cato)

    1. You know nothing of being a libertarian. You are a far left psychopath.

      1. HOW WOULD YOU KNOW?????
        LIBERTARIANS REJECT YOUR COWARDLY AGGRESSION, AS A FUNDAMENTAL VALUE.

        1. Fuck off, and die, Hihn.

          1. Behold the Trumpster mentality

            Fuck off, and die

            EXACTLY like Trump.,

            1. Fuck off and die, Hihn.

              1. A total lack of conscience is the literal definition of a psychopath … like Sevo and Trump, Red Rocks and Tulpa, and all other neo-nazis.

                1. I predict

                  (LOL) For absolute nastiness, nothing can top the Reason.com commentariat, for the oppression, bullying and punishment of opposing views

                  They deliver! Sevo and Last of the Shitheads!!!

                  Their out-of-control rage

    2. “or absolute nastiness, nothing can top the Reason.com commentariat, for the oppression, bullying and punishment of opposing views”

      Said the lunatic that keeps an actual enemies list on his website.

      1. ANOTHER fucking psycho!

        There is no enemies list, you shameless liar.
        It took me a while to find the page with Google.

        There IS a list of ENEMIES/AGGRESSORS …. who launch unprovoked assaults and lies … as you just did ,… the worst of the oppressive bullies and fucking liars I mentioned … LIKE YOU.

        And PROOF of how PSYCHO you all are!

        (I’m not Hihn, but I’ll defend him from you THUGS AND BULLIES.
        Libertarians have opposed aggression fot over 50 years)

        Anything else? (smirk)

        (Watch how many thugs go INSANE over this)

        1. Try not to shoot anyone, okay?

          1. (Watch how many thugs go INSANE over this)

            Try not to shoot anyone, okay?

            Proof is the only weapon I need against your ilk.,

            1. Fuck off and die, Hihn.

              1. ANOTHER FAIL!!!

      1. I’m not Hihn, and it’s too much fun exposing alt-right psychos.
        With PROOF..

        1. Fuck off and die, Hihn.


          1. Sevo: Fuck off and die, Hihn.

            Me: I’m not Hihn, and it’s too much fun exposing alt-right psychos.
            With PROOF..

            Sevo: Fuck off and die, Hihn.
            ============
            MORE PROOF!

  25. Rage doesn’t rule American politics.
    Stupidity, greed and rampant cronyism rules American politics from both parties.

    1. Those as well as fake credentialism and class snobbery. Add those two to your list and it is pretty much spot on.

  26. Except this is a lie–

    McConnell’s party is up to the challenge of amping up the language in turn. Just weeks ago, Republicans sent chills down the spines of their opponents with calls to deport a group of left-wing members of Congress, most of whom were born and raised in the United States. They should “go back and help fix the totally broken and crime infested places from which they came,” president Trump said. “Send her back,” his supporters chanted at a rally.

    This ISN’T what was said, This is the spin created by the allies of those who said “stab the motherfucker in the heart.”

    THIS is what you’re mangling in service to the Left–

    So interesting to see “Progressive” Democrat Congresswomen, who originally came from countries whose governments are a complete and total catastrophe, the worst, most corrupt and inept anywhere in the world (if they even have a functioning government at all), now loudly………and viciously telling the people of the United States, the greatest and most powerful Nation on earth, how our government is to be run. Why don’t they go back and help fix the totally broken and crime infested places from which they came. Then come back and show us how……it is done. These places need your help badly, you can’t leave fast enough. I’m sure that Nancy Pelosi would be very happy to quickly work out free travel arrangements!

    It is nowhere near the evil of “stab the motherfucker in the heart.”–particularly when stated right after one of their co-politicals just killed 9 people in Dayton.

    1. The way it is worded not only gets the gist of what Trump said wrong, it implicitly suggest McConnell and the much of the rest of the GOP were on board with it. In other words, it was a party statement rather than the Republican who holds the Presidency and has diarrhea of the mouth.

  27. In the wake of two high-profile mass shootings over the weekend, the conversation got a little vitriolic in America. Again.

    Did it? Honestly, I didn’t even notice or care. I was at a wedding. I didn’t check the internet for 3 days. I even talked politics with a few friends. None of its was vitriolic.

    It seems to me that the vitriol only happens online, at least for the most part. Once people are in person and they are unprotected by anonymity, they tend to temper their rhetoric a bit more.

  28. “Violence would be justified” if the opposing party wins the 2020 presidential election say 18 percent of Democrats and 13 percent of Republicans

    The people that answer “yes” to this question don’t realize that their family members and friends would be killed in the fighting. Political violence usually = terrorism. It’d be indiscriminate. It would destroy YOUR neighborhood, YOUR communities’ businesses, YOUR family.

    They are thinking “yes, the violence would be justified” without acknowledging the quiet voice in the back of their head that adds: “in another neighborhood” because once the bullets and bricks start flying into YOUR house and hits your innocent 5-year-old during dinner even though you voted for the “right” person and posted the “right” sign on your lawn, your tune suddenly changes.

  29. Lots of things to be concerned about and I think politics is becoming more polarized for whatever reasons.

    One thing we can be thankful for. We can live free of the terror of GIANT CARNIVOROUS PARROTS

    https://news.google.com/articles/CAIiEAdzf-g2U0ukNyMJa0lDJ88qGQgEKhAIACoHCAowmrWECzDc_IADMJS5ngY?hl=en-US&gl=US&ceid=US%3Aen

  30. Libertarians really need to fuck off with the “Republicans are just as bad!” memes. This is why the left can’t meme. Everything you post is utter trash and blatant misrepresentations of what was actually said. NOBODY CALLED FOR DEPORTATIONS OF THE SO CALLED “SQUAD”

  31. Libertarians really need to fuck off with the “Republicans are just as bad!” memes.

    (lol) You just proved us correct. … for over 50 years now.

    NOBODY CALLED FOR DEPORTATIONS OF THE SO CALLED “SQUAD”

    “Send her back”
    Are you delusional or dishonest?
    .

    1. Fuck off, Hihn. And die.

      1. Can there be ANY failure greater than a COWARDLY Bully, who FAILS …. 18 times on a single page… all RAGING at inconvenient facts.????

  32. ANOTHER good Tuccille article. This one invites you to wonder if there was a farthing’s worth of difference between the Eurasia, Eastasia and Oceania parties in Orwell’s 1984. Yet each described whichever it was backstabbing as evil personified–just like the looter politicians home-grown in These Sovereign States. Upside is both kleptocracy factions struggle to ignore the LP–the way Jesus freaks and mohammedan berserkers struggle to ignore unsuperstitious freethinkers while slitting each others’ throats.

  33. Violence justifies violence. Simple election of the other side does not. Violence in support of the elected government is justified if should be avoided if possible.

  34. I pretty much feel rage toward politicians of either party. They are all lying, craven, power-grabbers, near as I can figure.

    So, basically, I rage against machine politics. Unfortunately, I don’t play any instrument well enough to be in a band as a result.

    1. Neither does RATM. They suck. Posers.

  35. If there is a new level of violent rhetoric in America, I don’t believe you can totally rule out the current president’s role. If you took all the negative things Obama, Biden, Hilary, Reid and Pelosi said during the last administration about conservatives; if you took all the negative things George W Bush, Cheney, Boehner, and Frist said during the administration before that about liberals, would all of that come close to matching the vitriol of three years of Trump?

    1. “…would all of that come close to matching the vitriol of three years of Trump?”

      Dunno, but the vitriol of the legacy press has more than matched anything Trump has tweeted.
      You need to get out more.

      1. You need to get out more.

        You need to get a conscience, and a soul … or a larger dick and ego.

  36. To paraphrase a certain congressperson:

    “If you are a happy American, we don’t need you.
    “If you are a white American who is not consumed with guilt and shame, we don’t need you”.
    If you are not a victim, consumed with grievance, we don’t need you”.

    EVERYTHING IS SO TERRIBLE AND UNFAIR!!!

    Haha

    1. Why are you drooling so heavily?

  37. I’m pretty sure that no one here is a Nazi. I know I’m not.
    I’m pretty sure no one here is in Antifa. I know I’m not. So could we maybe learn/remember how to not act as though there is nothing in between Pol Pot and Adolf Hitler?

    Who knows? It is entirely possible that some of us who post here have met by chance at a store or held the door for each other at a restaurant or something random like that.

    I still cling to this hope that if we were all sitting around at a bar/dinner table/wedding etc. there would not be nearly this much vitriol. Our kids would play, we’d play some kind of game and drink some beers, and we might disagree on some stuff but at the end of the night we’d all just exchange pleasantries and go about our lives.

    I’ve never registered for either party and I never will. I try to think of things in terms of “give me an given issue and I will tell you what I think about it” as opposed to “I support Democrats” or “I support Republicans.” I could never join a frat because I always feared being put in a position where a frat brother does some awful shit and I would be expected to help him cover it up or excuse it because we’re on the same “team.”

    My number one way to judge people is based on how they act when they are on the upper side of a power imbalance in a given situation. Like, how they treat kids. Or waitresses. Or constituents. How they act when they are likely to get away with it due to holding the upper hand. How their words match up with their professed values.

    That said, it leads me to part of why I feel so strongly that Trump is a terrible President. I think the majority of people on this site, me included, think the government should be lessened in size, scope and spending, but the fact remains that the President of the United States is by far the most powerful individual on earth. And that is why I give a shit about what he Tweets and a lot of what he says at his rallies. That (and listening to decades of “we need Christian values in this country, followed by THIS guy?) is why it disgusts me that he is such a pig. That is why I wish he would use his words more carefully. Because he/she/xe (future Presidents could be any of those) has the biggest megaphone in the world. Not to mention nuclear codes and control of the military. I can teach my kids to just ignore and/or call out regular garden variety bullies. I cannot explain satisfactorily to my kid why it is “okay” for the most powerful person on earth, who is, at least compared to any other individual in our system of government, “the boss of me and the boss of you” in kidspeak, to act like this. And it becomes even harder when I try to square this person’s behavior with the supposed “Christian values” that I have been told for decades are supposedly what’s missing from our society these days. Yet here I am raising my kid to show others kindness and respect, and even though we are socially liberal, we do still follow many of what would be called the “old rules. Honesty. Decency. Respect. Work. Responsibility for one’s own actions. I truly believe that most of us here do the same thing in our lives and with our kids and at our jobs. But on the Internet it’s all tough guy bullshit. In that regard, I hate to say it, but is there a “lefty” equivalent of “pry it from my cold dead hands” stickers and all that? I don’t see it. The pink hairs around here all have bumper stickers like “keep your laws off my body” whereas the hicks all have stickers that have something to do with shooting people. Is not one more dangerous than the other? Other than Antifa, is there some intersectionalist “let’s start a civil war over plastic straws” group?

    I live in a place where there are both legit “hicks” with the coal-rolling trucks etc., and literal pink-haired transgender people driving Priuses, and lots of let’s just say average folk, all living in the same place. Everyone seems to be able to figure out how to, for the most part, live their lives and not try to control or ruin everyone else’s. Yet apparently everyone (or many anyway) seems to go home and post on the Web about how everything is Civil War II or bust. Why? In that regard, I hate to say it, but is there a “lefty” equivalent of “pry it from my cold dead hands” or stickers and all that? I don’t see it. The pink hairs around here often have bumper stickers like “keep your laws off my body” whereas the hicks often have stickers that have something to do with shooting people. Is not one more dangerous than the other? I don’t see the hippies around here stocking up on ammo, I see them stocking up on patchouli. I do however see an increasing number of trucks with stickers depicting AR-15s. Other than Antifa, what is the “true” threat of “violence” from the majority of these like 20-year old college kids that constitute the actual majority of what I guess would be called “the Left?” Is there some intersectionalist “let’s start a civil war over plastic straws” group? I don’t see the hippies around here stocking up on ammo, I see them stocking up on patchouli. I do however see an increasing number of trucks with stickers depicting AR-15s. But I digress.

    In any event think 9/11 is what really got this going, and almost 20 years later it’s sad to reflect on how in that regard the terrorists really have won. They got what they wanted….us all fighting each other. They needed that because in a straight up military conflict they could never defeat us, so they want us to taear each other apart and do the job for them. Before 9/11, I hadn’t really heard people be so quick to frame everything as “conswervative/liberal” or Democrat/Republican” or “left/right.” And no, I was not a young kid when 9/11 happened, so that’s not why I didn’t feel it was so pervasive before that. But that was when it started being so “important” for everyone to wear flag pins or whatever and make every single thing be about being liberal or conservative. “You’re with us or against us.” As if there was nothing in between “support our troops” versus “support Al Qaeda.” Since then, it’s probably mostly the ease of using the Net 24/7 that has helped us become our worst selves.

    1. Who ALLOWED anyone so thoughtful into this jungle of hatred?

    2. Hitler, Pol Pot and all like them were not the fundamental problem, but they were focused on by historians and political philosophers. This is a mistake, a diversion to keep the truth from being discovered. Authoritarians can’t win using reason, so they use fraud (propaganda, myth) and youth indoctrination with the superstition of, the belief in, obedience to authority. This is how we begin our life, as wards of others, needing others, without cognitively developed minds. It’s the perfect time to stunt cognition with brainwashing.
      And so it was the Prussian “Ed” method was inflicted on American society in the late 19th century. Slowly it permeated the culture until we have nation ripe for a dictator who will be demanded by the populace. The public creates the dictator. He is a reflection of his culture.
      This can only be countered by an enlightenment of 10-15%. That can only happen without the MSM who is controlled. The ‘net is our only hope.

      1. Anyone else believe that Hitler was invented by librul historians … … to falsely shame the the fascist right? (lol)

        Did you march in Charlottesville, or only VOTE for Trump?

    3. Thanks Jomo.
      I don’t agree 100% with everything you said (more like 90%), but that was very well put.

      Total agreement about needing “Christian values” and then getting Trump. I’ve discussed this several times with my fundamentalist parents, we never agree, but at least I can discuss it civilly with them. Here in the “Heart of Dixie” not everyone can say that.

  38. One more thing…what ever happened to arguing about behaviors instead of arguing about people?

    1. Also, sorry for the paragraph that got repeated. Typed the post up in Wordpad so the Internet wouldn’t eat it, and sadly no edit button so I failed to catch the repeat paragraph. in my paste job. 🙂

  39. …also, I meant to type “how their ACTIONS square up with their professed values.”

  40. It’s a little hard to take seriously an article which starts by implicitly suggesting that those who want to hinder gun violence are nastier than those actually seeking to maintain it. By supporting gun rights one is literally complicit in and co-responsible for murder. Tens of murders a day, in fact. Any attempt to sneer at those seeing their “political” opponents as murderous following such a catastrophic failure of reason is fatally undermined.

    The USA’s political scene is dominated by extremists of such a stripe as would until recently not even receive attention in most developed countries. It is hardly surprising that many think that “political” violence is justified when “political” ends themselves involve massive harm. Climate denial and the assault on women’s reproductive freedoms, for instance, involve concrete harm to countless people, up to and including deaths. It is a symptom of the sickness infecting the USA that these and many other opinions are seen as “political” at all. Everywhere else, science is just science, and an attempt to force a woman to carry a child to term when her life is endangered or she was raped would be seen as attempted murder and aggravated rape, respectively.

    Only in the USA have these for decades been miscast as “political”. It’s no wonder people are prepared to resort to violence. I would, too.

    1. It’s a little hard to take seriously an article which starts by implicitly suggesting that those who want to hinder gun violence are nastier than those actually seeking to maintain it

      It’s a little hard to take seriously, any comment that opens with such blatant dishonesty and/or illiteracy.

      It’s no wonder people are prepared to resort to violence. I would

      So this was also your “justification?”

    2. “By supporting gun rights one is literally complicit in and co-responsible for murder.”

      I had no idea that sticking up for the Bill of Rights made me a literal accomplice to M-U-R-D-E-R.

      Y’know, you could argue about gun ownership in a way that was more nuanced and effective, or you can just make an overly broad, asinine statement that completely turns off anyone who might be willing to listen to you for 10 seconds.

      Your choice, but I don’t think you’re gonna get much sympathy ’round here.

    3. “Climate Denial”??? lol. Wow, I wonder when that got political

      “Women’s reproductive freedoms” = violently murdering a human being, as practiced in NY and VA and elsewhere in 2019.

      “Carrying a child to term “ and delivering by Caesarian is actually safer than late term abortions in the vast majority of complicated pregnancies, that is actual “Science” of 2019. Only in the case of aggressive cancers that must be treated with chemo is a Mother’s life endangered more by continuing a healthy pregnancy than by abortion.

      “ only in the USA”… the US is 1 of only 4 countries in the world where unlimited late term abortion is even allowed, you nitwit, a fact the socialist “we should be more like Europe” dunderhead propagandists never get around to mentioning…..

  41. I earned $5000 last month by working online just for 5 to 8 hours on my laptop and this was so easy that i myself could not believe before working on this site. If You too want to earn such a big money then come and join us.

    CLICK HERE►► Read More

  42. When a govt. is founded on acceptance of the initiation of force, threat thereof, as all governments are worldwide, it is called authoritarianism. But a political paradigm must have popular support, passive or active, to exist. And support of authoritarianism is self-destructive, therefore the majority support self-enslavement.
    Of course, they deny it, ignore the evidence. They live in a Police Stage/US Empire, suffer tyranny, and call it freedom. They serve political masters openly, live in fear, and pretend to be brave, yet are afraid to question their superstition, their faith in force.
    Instead, they accept the lie that a voluntary politics would be chaos. They deny the political reality of law is chaos, not order. They accept the lie that force creates order and that reason is part of that order. Force is the opposite of reason and choice. When the state’s arguments fail, as they always do, they drop the facade of reason and use force, justifying it as “necessary evil”, temporary, an emergency measure. And their willfully blind victims let them get away with it.
    Before a bad idea can be defeated, it has to be acknowledged and debated. Statists will lose that debate and they know it so they control communication as much as they can. They control thought by youth indoctrination, called “public ed”. Mass delusion prevails.
    Attacking violence implies an acceptance of reason but the implication may be missed. I advocate reason, rights, and choice as the only civil, sustainable way to live.

    1. When a govt. is founded on acceptance of the initiation of force

      When a psycho drools in public …

      I advocate reason, rights, and choice as the only civil, sustainable way to live.

      You FAIIL at all three, by lying about initiation of force, and DENYING people the CHOICE to form voluntary associations unapproved by you.

      Are Kiwanis dues the initiation of force? Is it “authoritarian” to demand dues as a condition of membership?

      Why don’t you remove your sorry ass from America, instead of MOOCHING off the liberty and prosperity, created and maintained by people you brain-deficient PUSSIES whine had no right to create and/or maintain?

      Say “hi” to your fellow Rothbardian/Misean/an-cap cry-babies.

  43. Quote: Those of us who reject both hateful factions are likely in for as rough a ride as the supporters of whichever legacy party gets the short end of the stick.

    Amen to that.

    1. ^this

      Left – Right = Zero
      Two sides of the same authoritarian coin.
      One borrows trillions to pay for free stuff.
      The other borrows trillions to pay for free tax cuts.
      Both comprised of mindless and loyal robots of the political class.

    2. Absolutely. After all, I’ve observed that our friends and family members who are on either side of the spectrum think that we’re on the opposite side as them, which means that the violent folks on both sides are going to want a piece of us.

  44. It does indeed. For more proof, look no further than the Twitter feed of the so-called “libertarian” Reason grand poibah Matt Welch:

    “Now would be a good time to throw a big cocktail party in New York or Washington, and invite every single conservative writer you know. #RedWedding2”

    https://twitter.com/mattwelch/status/1102654202545913857?s=12

    For those few of you out there who aren’t all familiar with Game of Thrones and thus don’t get the reference, the “Red Wedding” was a surprise smbush/massacre”. Matt Welch thinks that everyone he doesn’t like and disagrees with should be murdered in cold blood. Talk about some serious rage issues!

    1. WHOOOOOOOOOOOSH …. SATIRE!

      Means CONSERVATIVE WRITERS would celebrate that Red Wedding. So you’re actually Trump’s Cock Ring, suffering the same hysteria,

      Talk about some serious rage issues!

      YOURS!
      Or perhaps a total lack of reason (pun intended).

      1. Oh fuck off Mary Stack. You’re an even bigger lying piece of crap lunatic than he is.

        Take all 86 of your screen names, shove them up your big fat ass, and then 86 yourself for good measure.

    2. Fuck Matt Welch. Give that commie scum a free helicopter ride to the wood chipper, for all I care

Please to post comments