Arizona Congresswoman Shot in the Head at Public Event

[tater]

BTW, regarding the terrible politicization of this attack, the sheriff and the press are absolutely complicit in this, as are some politicians. Immediately calling for "toning down rhetoric" implies that rhetoric had anything to do with this in the first place—and there is zero data that this is true. It goes to statements by others here that the US somehow is in a particularly polarized state, which any even casual student of American political history would know is utter rubbish.

[August]

Originally Posted by tater

BTW, regarding the terrible politicization of this attack, the sheriff and the press are absolutely complicit in this, as are some politicians. Immediately calling for "toning down rhetoric" implies that rhetoric had anything to do with this in the first place—and there is zero data that this is true. It goes to statements by others here that the US somehow is in a particularly polarized state, which any even casual student of American political history would know is utter rubbish.

A very good point Tater.

[Kongo Otto]

Originally Posted by tater

It goes to statements by others here that the US somehow is in a particularly polarized state, which any even casual student of American political history would know is utter rubbish.

Hmm ok then please explain some of this pictures.

[tater]

So what? If you have a point with those pictures, compare them to polarization during every other US Administration. Have you read editorials written during the Adams Administration? What do you know about open rebellions like the Whiskey Rebellion during the Washington Administration? What about the years leading to the US Civil War?

US politics is no more polarized than ever.

[Kongo Otto]

Originally Posted by tater

So what? If you have a point with those pictures, compare them to polarization during every other US Administration. Have you read editorials written during the Adams Administration? What do you know about open rebellions like the Whiskey Rebellion during the Washington Administration? What about the years leading to the US Civil War?

US politics is no more polarized than ever.

What i try to say is that polarization should not be an component of any kind of discussion including political themes. Polarization just make people blind for rational argumentation.
On both sides!!

[mookiemookie]

Originally Posted by Kongo Otto

What i try to say is that polarization should not be an component of any kind of discussion including political themes. Polarization just make people blind for rational argumentation.
On both sides!!

American politics is like a sport for some people. They cheer on their team and boo the other guys. It's just that way.

[goldorak]

Originally Posted by mookiemookie

American politics is like a sport for some people. They cheer on their team and boo the other guys. It's just that way.

Give the politicians weapons and throw them in the arena.
There, no need for political discourse or compromise. Only one wins all.

[tater]

Originally Posted by Kongo Otto

What i try to say is that polarization should not be an component of any kind of discussion including political themes. Polarization just make people blind for rational argumentation.
On both sides!!

All politics is polarized unless there is basically no difference between them. Perhaps you are used to in effect single-party rule. The US system has been "polarized" since President Washington. Weapons are in fact much harder to come by now, too. Until the mid-20th century virtually no weapon was forbidden for private ownership, so any loon could choose to be as well armed as the military.

If you want to show that something is worse NOW, then demonstrate that it is so vs the rest of US electoral history (good luck with that).

This was instantly politicized, and yes, more by the left than the right (presumably that sheriff is a D as he's blamed talk radio now, too, with zero evidence). I have seen some news, and blaming rhetoric is on every network as a possibility—and it should not even be out there for discussion as they have ZERO facts at this point. Any story even talking about this WRT political discourse is nothing but speculation—not news. Facts, facts, facts.

When Ft Hood happened, the immediate call (from the press, and the White House) was to not jump to conclusions even though the shooter was a Muslim who was in contact with radicals, shouted allah akbar while murdering, etc. The immediate call in the wake of THIS shooting, OTOH, is to "tone down political speech" when there is zero evidence that such speech had anything to do with this. It is quite possible the guy is on the other side, too. Or more likely is so totally nuts he doesn't fit ANY side.

BTW, note that in the case of Hasan and Ft Hood, that AQ has been known to intentionally recruit people who are already mentally ill, or who have some mental deficit since they are easier to control. That is a case of a larger, political organization seeking out the mentally ill to do their violent bidding. NO political movement in the US is doing this. None at all. So this is not political, it's a mental health thing. If a shooter killed because he heard god telling him to, would that make all religion responsible? If a nut said that he heard voices—and the voice was Obama—telling him to, would Obama be responsible? No, it'd just be a sadly insane guy as this very likely is.

Note that this also means that he's just as crazy if he's in fact a leftist, and it's not more connected to crazy left nuts like moveon, kos, huffpo, etc than it would be to the Tea Party.

He's CRAZY. That's it.

[mookiemookie]

Originally Posted by tater

All politics is polarized unless there is basically no difference between them. Perhaps you are used to in effect single-party rule. The US system has been "polarized" since President Washington. Weapons are in fact much harder to come by now, too. Until the mid-20th century virtually no weapon was forbidden for private ownership, so any loon could choose to be as well armed as the military.

If you want to show that something is worse NOW, then demonstrate that it is so vs the rest of US electoral history (good luck with that).

Maybe we can bring back duels for politicians.

[tater]

Originally Posted by mookiemookie

Maybe we can bring back duels for politicians.

That's impossible, the US is more polarized than ever, and there are no duels NOW!

[Takeda Shingen]

Originally Posted by mookiemookie

Maybe we can bring back duels for politicians.

It wouldn't be without constitutional precedent.

[Ducimus]

Originally Posted by tater

So what? If you have a point with those pictures, compare them to polarization during every other US Administration. Have you read editorials written during the Adams Administration? What do you know about open rebellions like the Whiskey Rebellion during the Washington Administration? What about the years leading to the US Civil War?

US politics is no more polarized than ever.

By the history book, you have a point. However, I don't think i've ever seen it more polarized in my life time as it has been these last couple of years. Have you?

Originally Posted by Ducimus

By the history book, you have a point. However, I don't think i've ever seen it more polarized in my life time as it has been these last couple of years. Have you?

I give you Chicago, Democratic National Covention, 1968.

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by tater

BTW, regarding the terrible politicization of this attack, the sheriff and the press are absolutely complicit in this, as are some politicians. Immediately calling for "toning down rhetoric" implies that rhetoric had anything to do with this in the first place—and there is zero data that this is true. It goes to statements by others here that the US somehow is in a particularly polarized state, which any even casual student of American political history would know is utter rubbish.

You only need to lean far enough towards the one pole, than the rest of the world looks as if representing the other.