Ten oz

Right, there is obviously rhetoric going around which is leading to an increase in hate groups and domestic terrorism. Democrats are literally being targeted for assassination. Those who support and listen to Booker, AOC, or any of the other Democrats most often complained about aren't trying to kill anyone.

You can express your opinion. I haven't said I feel otherwise. There is nothing wrong with disagreeing with Booker. I was critical of Booker in the Dem Primary thread. I am objecting to hyperbolic disagreement like claiming Booker advocated violence when didn't.

I think most people agree Trump's attacks on the media are wrong. The problem is not enough people are willing to acknowledge it unequivocally.

This! Decent people need to start standing up. By stand up I just mean point out to others when their language and rhetoric is crossing the line.

I am not against free press or against free speech. If every news program I disliked was pulled off the air tomorrow their audience would still be able to reach similar content online. I think the problem is that too many of us (average people) are apathetic to the rhetoric. We are allowing those who preach hate and speak lies to have louder voices. Polarized as the nation is I believe 70% of the population basically agrees on 95% of stuff. White Supremacists like the one arrested yesterday are members of a tiny minority. Such groups only have power when the majority fail to oppose them adequately.

They both also clearly stated during those same speeches to not break the law or do anything violent. We have been over this. My point was that the same Politicians you have attacked on this site are also having their lives threatened. Not empty threats either. These are serious threats. Some humble self reflection might be in order.

Gabby Gifford's (Democrat) was also shot but I didn't mention her because that wasn't associated with the serial cycle of attacks I am referring to. Steve Scalise wasn't being regularly targeted by Democrats and left leaning media. After the attacks everyone immediately rejected the violence hands down without caveats or delay. You cannot pull up a single post I ever made pre or post the shooting where I ever said a single bad word about Steve Scalise. I doubt you can find a single negative post anyone on this forum ever made about Steve Scalise. You and I were literally exchanging posts about Booker and Holder when the bombing story broke. You were misrepresenting them (Booker and Holder) as promoting violence at the same time Cesar Sayoc was trying to murder them. Fast forward a few months and AOC has gotten a lot of attention from you of late and now we see her name on a kill list.These individuals are being targeted by right wing extremist via media and by their advocates in office. I am not blame you for what happened. Rather I am trying to encourage you to open your eyes and see that some of the media diet your ingesting and the views being promoting are toxic. Booker, AOC, and etc are people who hold politic beliefs you possibly disagree with. They are not malevolent figures in anyway. They do not promote violence, hatered, racism, or etc. The bomber in FL could have been classified as a one off but now here we are with another person who was looking to murder many of the same people. By name both went after Maxine Waters, Cory Booker, Kamala Harris, Elizabeth Warren, and etc.

This stuff has been exacerbated by Trump specifically and those who support him. The leaders in question have names. This climate isn't being stoked by all our leaders. This stuff needs to be addressed directly if it is ever to improve. AOC has been in office 6 weeks and she is already being targeted. I mention her because her name has already been inserted into numerous arguments on this forum. Some posters get hyperbolic about her. AOC is for free healthcare. So what. It certainly isn't a reason to murder her. It isn't a reason to carry on about and demagogue her endless. The amount of exaggeration and character assassination that goes on even at the lowest levels is disgusting. Harris, Booker, Waters, and so on have been repeatedly targeted. This is all very dangerous. Just 50yrs ago we had a wave of political Assassinations: MLK, Medgar Evans, RFK, freedom summer murders, and etc. We have been through this stuff before with Mccarthyism and then civil rights. It took people calling it out and standing up to it directly. Currently I think we (most people) are passively leaning on platitudes about partisanship hoping it just improves on its own. I don't think it can. This isn't liberal vs conservative, Democrat vs Republicans, or whatever. This is a dangerous ideology rooting itself in society. *I am not implying you specifically have stated otherwise or made contrary remarks.

Rand Paul's neighbor attacked him over domestic issues the two had with each other. It had nothing to do with politics or the media. Your examples are just whataboutism. People have tried and have be caught conspiracying to kill people at CNN and MSNBC well as Democrat Representatives. It is serious. There is no comparison going the other way. The President has repeated called those who have been targeted "enemy of the people". It has a corrosive effect and needs to stop before one of these lunatics are successful.

Cesar Sayoc targeted (mailing bombs) numerous potential Democratic candidates. Yesterday another person, Christopher Paul Hasson, was arrested for plotting to murder many potential Democratic candidates as well. Between Sayoc and Hasson the following Democratic candidates and potential candidates have been targeted: Booker, Harris, Biden, O'Rouke, Gilibrand, and Warren. Neither targeted Bernie Sanders. As previously discussed conservative media treats Bernie Sanders favorably. It has positioned him as a non-divisive figure. One can openly support Sanders without drawing ire. It is a very strange situation considering the right is hysterical about AOC who policy for policy supports all the same stuff as Bernie Sanders. It is like we are in the social of a large scale social media/political experiment. I hope it ends wells.

In October Cesar sayoc was arrested for sending explosives to Obama, Joe Biden, Clinton, Kamala Harris and Cory Booker, former Attorney General Eric Holder, actor Robert De Niro, John Brennan, James Clapper, billionaires George Soros and Tom Steyer, and Rep. Maxine Waters, D-Calif. Yesterday a Military Officer was arrested who was plotting to kill some of the same people, link below. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez has only been in political office 6 weeks and already made the list of a right wing extremist who was plotting to murder people. This isn't standard political polarization. This isn't a typical both sides issue. We are in a very dangerous political environment. Considering the the repeated threats we are fortunate none of the individuals who've now been repeated targeted haven't been hurt. Is the a link behind the way conservative media covers AOC, Pelosi, Booker, Waters, and etc and these Domestic Terrorists? Does Conservative leaning media have a responsibility to change their tone and reporting related to those who are now being repeated for murder by Right Wing Extremist? Does the President?

It is suspicious timing to me coming just after Barr was confirmed, questions were raised about acting AG Whitaker lying to Congress, and Trump naming Rosenstein's replacement. Even if Mueller isn't finished and the report being headlined is just a preliminary summary I am sure Trump's team love to see what Mueller has so they can start preemptively attacking or defending people.

A new Attorney General William Barr was just confirmed. We all know the Mueller investigation was the reason the former Attorney General was fired. All the news reports I have seen state that Barr is preparing to receive Mueller's report. That reads different to me than Mueller is preparing to turn in a final report. This could be Barr passive aggressively forcing Mueller to provide him some type of report. Firing Mueller would cause numerous legal challenges a Congressional investigation. Receiving Mueller's report and then telling Mueller standby pending eternal review might be the loophole. Of course that is highly speculative on my part. It could very well be that Mueller is done.

Until Mueller's team announces it themselves I am skeptical. As a strategy to both misdirect the media and possibly pressure those involved in the investigation people associated with Trump have been making up timelines for the Mueller investigation since the beginning. It is difficult to know what to believe. Below are just couple examples and Trump's lawyers claiming to have information on when it would end.

I basically agree. We can look at it philosophically and speculate about God being a projection of our (human) mortality or what ever but at the end of the day I don't think it is that deep. People believe in God because they were exposed to the idea of God as children and it stuck. Its no more or less complicated. Arguments can be made that the consistency of cultures around the world having gods implies the idea of a God plays an important role in human psychology but I think that's just minutiae. Different cultures around the world have versions of Bigfoot (Yeti, Abominable Snowman, Sasquatch, Yowie, Orang Pendek, etc) too yet that doesn't mean as an idea Bigfoot serves some greater purpose. We humans believe things we're told. We especially believe things we are told by people we have strong emotional connections to. It isn't complicated.

While the internet is human's greatest tool for distributing information it also is our greatest tool for distributing falsehoods. Theories which rejected known information (anti science) very often masquerade or start off a scientific theories their originators insist are serious. Flat Earth, anti vaccination, Moon Landing hoax, and the Mandela Effect just to name a few are the sort of garbage masquerading as science Moderators here need to keep an eye for. The system here is not perfect but all things considered I think it is fair. In my experience provided a poster have a specific question they are inquiring about or a specific line of discussion thread's stay open. It is when thread stack falsehoods or only exist are preaching platforms (soapbox) for their originator that thread's typically get close. For example a thread specifically discussing the observable distance of the horizon is specific while a thread about the the horizon being a hoax because it looks different from a plane introduces layers of falsehoods and will most likely fail. If you are creating thread's which have been closed or are participating in thread's you enjoy which get closed I recommend thinking carefully about what specific bits can be discussed in isolation and starting a thread about those. Often people start a single thread to discuss an idea which should actually be a few different threads.

There is still an uncalled race from the November election, link.

Sanders will be helped by lots of GOP and Russian propaganda that will attempt to sour feelings and create division. The propaganda probably will earn Sanders a greater share of media coverage as well. I suspect all the extra coverage will make Sanders seem like a front runner right up until voting starts. Then his initial poorer than expected performances will create negative buzz as folks on the right will call it evidence of corruption. Hopefully I am wrong but it appears to me that Sanders has become a Trojan horse and his ego prevents him from seeing it.

I don't think Sanders has a shot at all. In 2016 it was a 2 person race. Clinton (no candidate) was ever going to get 100% of the primary vote. Sanders had a sizable built in audience. Additionally Republicans and Russian trolls worked around the clock to bolster Sanders in an attempt t undermine Clinton. Those two factors will not work out in Sanders favor in 2020. Sanders might finish respectfully in a few States but I doubt he actually wins a single one.

Bernie Sanders has announced he is running for the Democratic Nomination. I view this as Sanders attempting to eat his cake and have it too. Sanders is not a Democrat yet insists on running for the Democratic nomination. I rather see Sanders join Schultz and flirt with an independent bid.

Because I think it is greater than individual random discretion. The use of Race to classify people has been done with intention as a means to an end and not merely by random. It might be fictional but it has served specific purposes.

Based on random choice or personal whim, rather than any reason or system. Do you know what insidious means?

Sadly history tells us otherwise. Views about race have shaped our world. That doesn't make Race real. No more real than the Virgin Marie's image burnt into toast makes Jehovah real. It does make the idea of Race something more than arbitrary though. Perhaps something equally as haphazard yet more insidious?

Posthaste

Other than superficial differences how would you be distinguishing between Swedes and Japanese? Your argument appears to be that since you perceive Race to be a thing it in fact must actually be a thing. I am not challenging the use of race in ornithology. Race is not used through zoology. Humans are not a type of bird. Humans are a type of primate. To my knowledge Race is not used to describe different populations of primates. Bonobos for example are considered their own species and not a race of chimpanzee. Likewise there are hundreds of species, not races, of Monkeys. Your insistence that race be used for Humans as it is for birds ignores the manner in which mammals closet to humans are classified. Do you feel science is also failing to see race in other mammals out of political correctness? As for the Hamitic Hypothesis I think it is a good example of how superficial differences lead to inaccurate classification. As previously mentioned Africa is a very genetically diverse place. European explores in Africa had superficial preconceived ideas of what Africans look like. When they encountered those who did not match that idea they labeled them Hamites believing they were white people who must be descendants of Noah's (biblical flood) son Ham. Seems ridiculous today but that actually happened. Lots of what people use to believe about history was based on the bible and what people thought they knew about race was all superficial. The result was the erroneous classification of a race of people called Hamites. It is an example of what happens when people use the common eye test to classify human populations.