J.C.MacSwell

Did you actually check out the links? There are a number of examples that are not from Clinton. She is defending fellow Democrats calling for uncivil behaviour, and the links include a number of examples. (which you requested) Are you seriously unaware there is a concern with the current political discourse? Do you believe it is only Trump, or only the Republicans? Your tendency to confirmation bias is pretty consistent, so should I take you at your word that you are serious, and never really able to see both sides? Apologies if I am wrong, but I believe you are much smarter than that, but being disingenuous. When will we see a return to mutual respect in American politics? https://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/2018/08/26/john-mccain-death-barack-obama-reaction-nr-vpx.cnn/video/playlists/mccain-bashing-trump/

Again. Are you serious?

Are you serious? https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2018/10/10/hillary-clintons-approval-incivility-democrats-overreach-conundrum/?utm_term=.e7bc51223917 https://www.weeklystandard.com/the-editors/hillary-clinton-attacks-republicans-defends-incivility What do you think Clinton is defending? She at least recognizes that it exists. Do you not? Where can a moderate go to vote in the upcoming election? What can be considered a win for anything that is not extreme? Who is going to lead a return to respectful political discourse?

I can't remember you once asking, never mind repeatedly. I object to the extreme rhetoric. It may help in getting the vote out but I don't believe it speaks well to the majority of Americans, who have more moderate views than the extremes of either side. I think it enables Trump, and in some cases almost makes him seem like a reasonable man, if only by comparison. When there is no one moderate to vote for...what can you hope to get?

How is it determined? Public opinion? Say it enough and you start to believe it? Just ask anyone?

Don't forget the Democrat "mob". They could easily be lead North. They don't seem to be able to think for themselves.

Then you have nothing to worry about. Your representatives will ensure he is impeached. If they don't you are wrong to make that statement like it is factual.

Believe all women and believe everything negative about the accused...is that the new slogan? (with the unstated understanding of course... that you believe in due process, but look at the statistics... he has to be lying...) When in this thread have you ever noted anything that might point to his innocence? It was so clear to you right from the start that he was guilty. If it is so clear he is lying he will soon be impeached. If it is not clear, or become clear, he will not be.

Why are we not talking more about how to make women safer while protecting their freedom, than believing them unconditionally after they have been violated when we have failed?

No. It's more because she's not obnoxious and rude. She would have a great demeanor for a president. But does she want to lead the current Democrat "mob"?

Now your equivalency is absurd...

Mine has Trump winning in 2020 with Kanye West as his new running mate...so I thought it was broken...

So...will he simply go unchallenged? How much of that is reluctant support? Ted Cruz et al can't be ecstatic about it. Graham seems to be backing Trump, but willing to speak up against him when he crosses the line. Graham: "I don't like what Trump said about Ford": https://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/2018/10/03/lindsey-graham-eleanor-holmes-norton-kavanaugh-trump-ath-vpx.cnn

Is he likely to be challenged at all? What if someone like, say, Lindsey Graham ran against him, not challenging his politics so much as offering a more civil discourse? Trump would of course insult the heck out of him, but coming from Trump how much of it would stick? Graham could probably hold his own without replying in kind, even while praising Trump for any areas it is clear he did well (implying he would not change it). Some of the Republicans thinking they cannot win with Trump and those tired of Trumps vitriol, which I would suggest is the majority, would have another option. If Graham did win, the Democrats might drop the extreme rhetoric also (I would suggest they would be in trouble if they didn't) and maybe things would cool down and become a more productive political debate... ...wishful thinking?

Thanks Ten oz. So if he is given the boot in 2020 it is probably with his replacement coming from the Democrats?

Yeah. The uncivil war has already begun. What are the chances Trump does not get the GOP ticket in 2020?

LOL, I agree. It felt odd putting them in the same sentence. They've (Democrats have) been uncivil more by committee.

As I said earlier, what we have discussed, rush to judgement, due process, and guilty until proven innocent (as we know them) are going to be significant election issues. You will be hearing a lot of rhetoric from both parties on this issue. So maybe we all now agree on this, at least generally (you kept us in suspense for a while), but unfortunately our moderate position doesn't make for a good "chant". It will get drowned out by those lead by the Trumps and Hironos.

Thanks CharonY. You are correct.

There is. For good reason. I cannot for instance ask their sexual orientation, or advertise for whites or males only (some exceptions notwithstanding) "Due process is the legal requirement that the state must respect all legal rights that are owed to a person." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Due_process It does not only apply to a trial And here is the OP (I bolded paragraph 2) for anyone questioning why due process is being discussed

Agree. But Kavanaugh got voted in. Trump said he was proven innocent, which of course was nonsense, he was not even declared or proven not guilty. He did however, get the job while due process was followed, convoluted as it may have been.

Where did I say there was any? Thus...Kavanaugh is now in the SCOTUS i.e. ...Hirono did not get her way...

Due process is about rights. It is incorrect to think that it takes effect only after charges are filed. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Due_process If you read carefully you will notice I included "rush to judgement" which of course can take place well before any hearings or trial. As I have alluded to a number of times to those complaining about his evasiveness throughout the hearing process, and his characterization of himself in high school/college, I think Kavanaugh was well aware that he was in a job interview...which at times deteriorated into character assassination... but one in which he was successful in getting the job.

It is hard though. I don't know whether his advocating of an investigation is additional or instead of his earlier stance on due process. He hasn't clarified...he's simply pulled a "Hirono".

It probably in your case has more to do with the "Wow... more conspiracy thinking. Good times. Good stuff. " I think this simply takes away from the clarity. Anyone already sucked down into the abyss of the extreme left and extreme right, or perched on the edge ready to go in, are going to miss the moderate and balanced 95%. Ten oz has provided much more generally accepted statistics than you did with your graphic, but seems quite inclined to a "ends justify the means" thinking. He hasn't made it clear he supports due process and the presumption of innocence as we know it, and has in fact implied otherwise.