@maporsche,
And what point is that? There has not been an exact item by item equality between the two sides over the last few decades?
Are you, and snood keeping score by awarding "hate points" to specific comments?
A) Holding up the bloody severed head of the president in an image published in the public media:
7 points (
It was a comedic effort after all and the people who are upset about it need to stop whining a get a sense of humor!)
B) Running a political ad that depicts Paul Ryan pushing an old woman in a wheelchair over a cliff:
5 points (
It's pretty damned close to the truth after all)
C) Publishing a Daily Kos piece that accuses Republicans of killing the poor to save enough money to give rich people a tax break:
6 points (
See B for reasoning. 3 additional points awarded for the 20 or 30 other articles published in left-wing e-zines and blogs that say almost the exact same thing, such as the 5/4/17 "Salon" article by Chauncey Devega that claimed there is "new research" that reveals why Republicans hate poor and sick people.)
D) The production of "Killing Republicans-A Rock Opera" which is funded, in part, by the taxpayers of NYC and New York State is a musical that
centers on the assassinations of Republican presidents. The clever poster for this musical follows:
Actually "Killing Republicans," despite its title, its marketing poster and the subject around which it based, is awarded -10 points because it actually addresses a very important question as eloquently expressed by the the play's writer and lyricist, Dick Zigun:
Zigun wrote:“I wanted to explore why the Republican party, champions of blacks’ lives under Abraham Lincoln, has now completely flipped now (sic).”
Zigun also tweeted to the whole wide world that he doesn't condone violence...that's a relief. So it gets 10 negative points (which for this scoring system is a positive), because after all, any moron should be able to tell it's satire, and the writer swears he doesn't condone violence.
E) The tweets of Fresno State’s lecturer Lars Maischak, of which the following are examples:
Quote:“To save American democracy, Trump must hang. The sooner and the higher, the better.”
2 points.
He's just a lecturer at a State college after all.
Quote:“Has anyone started soliciting money and design drafts for a monument honoring the Trump assassin, yet?”
8 points and highest rated hateful item.
Hey, maybe it would be best for Trump to leave the national stage...permanently, but we can't have people talking about monuments to assassins!
Quote:“Justice = the execution of two Republicans for each deported immigrant.”
6 points.
Geez this one really isn't very nice, but Republicans are trying to kill the poor, the sick and immigrants. Karma's a bitch after all.
Quote:“When California secedes, you Fascist Trump-voting white trash scum can wallow in your filthy hell-holes of flyover states. Enjoy.”
0 points.
What's wrong with this one? The white trash supporters of Trump who are fascists, (and a whole lot of them are!) are scum.
Quote:“A democracy must not be tolerant of those who want to abolish democracy. It must vigorously defend itself. Ban the GOP.”
0 points.
After all, oralloy wants to do the same to the Democrat party.
Quote:“Given the nature of his [Trump’s] regime, he will be held accountable for his crimes in a court, and historical precedent suggests that a death sentence is inevitable, if democracy prevails.”
0 points.
We had to let camlok score one.
Quote:“If only Mary had had an abortion! We would have been spared this Clerical-Fascist crap. His Glory, my ass!”
0 points.
Nothing wrong with abortion and Jesus is a fictional character, so don't get your panties in a twist! After all, the fascists of the Religious Right do present a dire threat to our nation and our freedoms. Falwell was no fictional character and Robinson and Jeffress ain't either.
H) At an LGBT Fundraiser in NYC, Democratic Candidate Hillary Clinton let down her guard and told the audience that approx 25% of the American people (one half of Trump's supporters) numbering in the tens of millions, were
deplorable and irredeemable human beings:
HRC wrote:...you could put half of Trump’s supporters into what I call the ‘basket of deplorables.’ Right? The racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamophobic — you name it. And unfortunately, there are people like that, and he has lifted them up.
7 points.
It was nasty alright but hateful? She admitted she was being "grossly generalistic" and after she received sharp criticism for the comments, she did say she regretted them so were they really all that bad? After all, she was right...at least half of Trump's supporters are deplorable racists, sexists homophobic, xenophobic, Islamaphobic -- you name it, and the other half are stupid marks who don't realize they are all being played by a despicable conman.
G) Candidate Donald Trump telling his supporters at one of his rallies that if they see someone getting ready to throw something at Trump or any of his supporters they should
knock the crap out of the guy, and not to worry because he would pay the legal fees of anyone who did: [
b]150,000 points[/b].
The guy was running for president of the United States for Chrissake and there he was encouraging his supporters to act violently towards someone about to take a violent action. It's atrocious and unprecedented! Yeah these other things are hateful and violent but none of them were running for POTUS when they said or did them, and no Democrat presidential candidate every encouraged his supporters to engage in violent acts.
Sure Robert Creamer a Democrat operative who worked for the Clinton campaign all but admitted in a hidden camera video that he engineered efforts to incite violence at Trump Rallies, but he wasn't the candidate after all, he just worked for her.
Sure George Wallace ran to be elected the Democrat nominee for POTUS in 1964, 1968, 1972 and 1976 and no liberal will deny that his campaign rhetoric was hate filled and, at the very least, teetered on the edge of actually calling for violence, but he never won the nomination despite giving his opponents a run for their money before an assassination attempt forced him to withdraw (though he won the Maryland and Michigan primaries after the shooting). No one, though, can find any evidence that Wallace actually urged his supporters to respond with violence to potentially violent disruptors at any of his campaign events. There were plenty of things that absolutely fall under the heading of hateful which he said and did during his career; including his campaigns for the Democratic nomination for POTUS, but none were exactly like what Trump did and so none of them are scored any points.
We could compile pages and pages of lists of the vile and hateful things people at both ends of the political spectrum have said and done over the years, and for many of them, their entries on the lists would include violence or incitement and/or encouragement of violence, but to what end? I've no doubt that you snood and other like minded members of this forum would want to continue the process until the thesis of which you are zealously convinced of was empirically
proven,
namely that Republicans and conservative are much worse people than Democrats and liberal and the frequency and severity of their hateful deeds and comments far, far exceeds that of those who oppose them.
I'm convinced that the numbers won't ever tell the story you want to believe, but you can knock yourself out trying. I certainly won't be lured into playing that game. More importantly though, even if we took days and enlisted the assistance of all the A2K members, if, at the end of the day, the lists demonstrated that the frequency of incidents was roughly equal between the two sides, you would still attempt to support and advance your thesis by arguing ad infinitum, often incredibly, that the severity of Democrat incidents was negligible in comparison to those of Republicans. The Molehill vs the Mountain scenario. Snood has already tried to make the case that the fact that there is no exact replica of Trump's given comments at one rally, that can be attributed to anyone running for president as a Democrat, proves his case, and you, in agreement, apparently believe that it is irrefutable.
The cute little addition to your comment of "...let's hope" is intended to imply that only someone mentally ill or devoid of principle would disagree, and is the perfect demonstration of the smug self assurance that makes further discussion of this matter pointless.
