I find the pearl clutching by those sides to be a bit much

[SimplyMe]

Yes, some Democrats have made hyperbolic statements against the Supreme Court and the abortion ruling. I seem to recall Republicans doing the same thing when issues like gay marriage were decided -- I even recall a "movement" by various Republicans to try and convince Governor's to refuse to follow the Supreme Court rulings in their states. For example, the Texas AG got a lot of support when he told Texas clerks they did not have to issue licenses for gay marriages. A clerk in Tennessee was celebrated, with complaints of the "illegality of arresting her," when she refused to issue a marriage license to a same sex couple.

On the other side, I'll agree that some (maybe even most) of the Democratic statements are over the top and should be scaled back, particularly those that use "threatening" language -- that is something both sides need to stop doing (unfortunately, that is likely something that neither side will quit doing). And, obviously, any actual violence should be prosecuted and, hopefully, it will be.

I'm severely worried about the US, if both parties continue to paint the other side as "evil" and use threatening or violent language and imagery.

 

[BobRyan]

Yes, some Democrats have made hyperbolic statements against the Supreme Court and the abortion ruling. I seem to recall Republicans doing the same thing when issues like gay marriage were decided

I don't ever remember a republican equivalent to the "politics of rage" that we see so prevalent in modern times.

The whole point of the "leaked" opinion was apparently to intimidate justices "via rage" - to get them on board with just how much "rage" they would face if they dared to go that direction.

I have not seen the republican equivalent to that sort of thing.

 

[grasping the after wind]

Yes, some Democrats have made hyperbolic statements against the Supreme Court and the abortion ruling. I seem to recall Republicans doing the same thing when issues like gay marriage were decided -- I even recall a "movement" by various Republicans to try and convince Governor's to refuse to follow the Supreme Court rulings in their states. For example, the Texas AG got a lot of support when he told Texas clerks they did not have to issue licenses for gay marriages. A clerk in Tennessee was celebrated, with complaints of the "illegality of arresting her," when she refused to issue a marriage license to a same sex couple.

On the other side, I'll agree that some (maybe even most) of the Democratic statements are over the top and should be scaled back, particularly those that use "threatening" language -- that is something both sides need to stop doing (unfortunately, that is likely something that neither side will quit doing). And, obviously, any actual violence should be prosecuted and, hopefully, it will be.

I'm severely worried about the US, if both parties continue to paint the other side as "evil" and use threatening or violent language and imagery.

I agree. Though I do think firing the clerk would have been sufficient. I don't know how one can justify arresting a person for refusing to issue a marriage license.

 

[SimplyMe]

I agree. Though I do think firing the clerk would have been sufficient. I don't know how one can justify arresting a person for refusing to issue a marriage license.

The jailing was not technically for not issuing the license -- a federal court had ruled she (or any of the other clerk's that worked for her) was required to issue the license, and she was jailed for Contempt of Court for failing to follow the Court's order. My recollection is that eventually another clerk eventually issued the license, ending the Contempt of Court order. I also seem to recall as County Clerk, an elective position, there was no way to "fire" her; I'm not sure of the law in Kentucky, if you can recall elected officials or the method for doing it, if it is possible other than waiting until the next election (and they get voted out).

 

[DaisyDay]

I don't ever remember a republican equivalent to the "politics of rage" that we see so prevalent in modern times.

The whole point of the "leaked" opinion was apparently to intimidate justices "via rage" - to get them on board with just how much "rage" they would face if they dared to go that direction.

I have not seen the republican equivalent to that sort of thing.

To see, you would have to open your eyes and look.

When the right wing rallies

 

[SimplyMe]

I don't ever remember a republican equivalent to the "politics of rage" that we see so prevalent in modern times.

The whole point of the "leaked" opinion was apparently to intimidate justices "via rage" - to get them on board with just how much "rage" they would face if they dared to go that direction.

I have not seen the republican equivalent to that sort of thing.

Then you aren't remembering clearly. While likely it had nothing to do with the shooting, you might recall Sarah Palin coming under criticism since she had put crosshairs on parts of the map where she wanted Democratic Congresspeople to loose, and Gabby Giffords was one of those in the crosshairs.

You have Donald Trump, when he was a candidate for President, calling for people attending his protests to get violent against the protestors at his campaign events -- including claiming he'd pay for their legal fees. He talked about "First Amendment solutions" for Hillary Clinton, a rather clear insinuation that some one could (and maybe should) shoot her if she won the Presidency; I'll admit that was likely hyperbole but it is something that was done.

After the 2020 election, even if you ignore 1/6 with the mixed messages (particularly the private communications with the Proud Boys), you had Republicans making false claims about various election workers, leading to them being called with death threats, etc. -- even Republican election workers being threatened by Trump supporters.

And if you go into the more rabid Trump supporters rallies, including at least one quote by former Pres. Trump himself, "We have no choice…. The fate of any nation ultimately depends upon the willingness of its citizens to lay down — and they must do this — lay down their very lives to defend their country…."

You can argue if one side is being more blatant in the calls or not but, if you listen to what is being said, both sides are doing it. In neither case is it good for the country, particularly as it further divides us.

 

[SilverBear]

I don't ever remember a republican equivalent to the "politics of rage" that we see so prevalent in modern times.

The whole point of the "leaked" opinion was apparently to intimidate justices "via rage" - to get them on board with just how much "rage" they would face if they dared to go that direction.

I have not seen the republican equivalent to that sort of thing.

you forgot the republicans who tried to kidnap the governor of Michigan?

and this?

and

 

[perplexed]

I have not seen the republican equivalent to that sort of thing.

You don't remember Freedom Fries?

I get the impression Democrats with horrible false accusations racism started it but Fox News loved labeling people like the band members from the Dixie chicks "pinheads that hate America" and they were subjected to viscous verbal attacks, boycotts and even some death threats for the crime of opposing the Iraq war.

Finally if you really think about it, is it fair to call someone that supports Obamacare a Marxist that hates America ?

 

[BobRyan]

You don't remember Freedom Fries?

"Freedom fries was a politically motivated renaming of French fries in the United States. The term was created in February 2003 in a North Carolina restaurant, and was widely publicized a month later when the then Republican Chairman of the Committee on House Administration, Bob Ney, renamed the menu item in three Congressional cafeterias. The political renaming occurred in context of France's opposition to the proposed invasion of Iraq."

I am not sure what the idea of "Renaming french fries - in a North Carolina restaurant" says about the topic at hand? OR are you saying that is an example of "What republicans do"??

 

[perplexed]

"Freedom fries was a politically motivated renaming of French fries in the United States. The term was created in February 2003 in a North Carolina restaurant, and was widely publicized a month later when the then Republican Chairman of the Committee on House Administration, Bob Ney, renamed the menu item in three Congressional cafeterias. The political renaming occurred in context of France's opposition to the proposed invasion of Iraq."

I am not sure what the idea of "Renaming french fries - in a North Carolina restaurant" says about the topic at hand? OR are you saying that is an example of "What republicans do"??

If you understand the other points in my post then it does not really matter

 

[Tanj]

I don't ever remember a republican equivalent to the "politics of rage" that we see so prevalent in modern times.

You don't remember Jan 6th 2020?

The whole point of the "leaked" opinion was apparently to intimidate justices "via rage" - to get them on board with just how much "rage" they would face if they dared to go that direction.

Evidence please. I am serious here. There has not been a single piece of evidence to suggest who did this or why, so I'd like to know where you got this idea from.

I have not seen the republican equivalent to that sort of thing.

None are as blind as those that choose not to see.

 

[durangodawood]

"Freedom fries was a politically motivated renaming of French fries in the United States. The term was created in February 2003 in a North Carolina restaurant, and was widely publicized a month later when the then Republican Chairman of the Committee on House Administration, Bob Ney, renamed the menu item in three Congressional cafeterias. The political renaming occurred in context of France's opposition to the proposed invasion of Iraq."

I am not sure what the idea of "Renaming french fries - in a North Carolina restaurant" says about the topic at hand? OR are you saying that is an example of "What republicans do"??

You could have responded to the ample evidence shown you of violence leaning extremism on the right. But no. You picked on "freedom fries."

 

[durangodawood]

....I'm severely worried about the US, if both parties continue to paint the other side as "evil" and use threatening or violent language and imagery.

When fully one third of the country feels the presidential election was stolen from them by the 'other side', I dont see threats and violence going away.

Wars have been fought over sentiments like that.

 

[RocksInMyHead]

The whole point of the "leaked" opinion was apparently to intimidate justices "via rage" - to get them on board with just how much "rage" they would face if they dared to go that direction.

Considering that we still don't know who leaked the opinion, that seems like a rather premature statement to me. It's certainly one possible motivation, but it could just as easily have been an effort to "lock in" the language and/or votes, as any changes could be called out as "bowing to public pressure".