*sigh*. No, not because they were republican. In Gifford's case, the shooter was a long-time drug and alcohol user who had bizarre and threatening behavior for YEARS. He was looney and being spurred on by drug use. He was anti-government, a conspiracy theorist, and hated Giffords because he didn't think women should have leadership positions. He went after her for reasons OTHER than the fact that she was a politician. The other people were unfortunate random victims. In the Congressional baseball shooting, the perp was a left-wing activist. He absolutely hated Republican legislators. He worked for Bernie's campaign. He wrote dozens of letters to local media, the content of which was mostly anti-Republican, and he despised Trump. He belonged to a Facebook group called, "Terminate the Republican Party". "Phil Montag, who was the volunteer co-chairman of the Nebraska Democratic Party’s technology committee, criticized Scalise by saying “his whole job is to … convince Republicans to (expletive) kick people off (expletive) health care.” “I’m glad he got shot. … I wish he was (expletive) dead.” Was there ANY comment of that nature uttered about Giffords? If so, I don't recall. There is just no comparison between the Giffords case which was driven by mental illness and drugs and the Congressional shooting which was politically motivated.
The trend on the left has been steadily becoming more alarming. The calls of racism, sexism bigotry on everyone who disagrees with them should be reclassified as hate speech unless they have definitive proof to back up their claim. More alarming is their desire to destroy the very principle upon which the nation was founded. They’ve deluded themselves into thinking that “democracy” is consistent with government by the people for the people, but in really it is a totalitarian rule implemented by mob rule. The most ingenious creation of the founding fathers was the Electoral College. In its context, it is the mechanism that prevents mob rule. It requires that the POTUS win the majority in enough States to ensure that the POTUS is the President of the United States, and not just of the majority of people. To ensure fairness to more populated States, they get more EC votes, but the system is designed to prevent the populations of one State influencing the vote in another State. As such, it prevents bifurcation of the population such that one group rules over the other in perpetuity, (rural vs urban; North vs south, etc) The “excess” votes of a heavily populated State like New York have no influence on the outcome in neighboring states but it does give them extra EC votes. As such, a change in one or more States can result in a change in power. THIS IS NOT POSSIBLE IN A DEMOCRACY, as it is mob rule and does not operate according to a Republic .... for which, the USA is a REPUBLIC. LEFTIST .....HATE THE EC as it is an obstacle to their totalitarian nature. Alexandria Cortez, the avowed Socialist running in NYC is the latest avowed Leftist to come out and call for an abandonment of the EC. What leftist don’t seem to understand, is the very structure of the EC also allows for them to temporarily regain power. ..... but the “temporary” is what bothers them. Since they are not likely to fool enough of the US population into abanding the EC, their next bet has been legislation through the courts with activist judges. All this crap started with FDR, .... and it was so successful, the left has made the court the Holy Grail. ........ and now their Holy Grail has come back to bite them in the ASS. They should have thought twice before politicizing the court.
I cant figure out why you don't live in California. You would be a great coach at a liberal college as you know the liberal playbook backwards and forwards. You should move here so you could be with all your buddies.