Doug and Dirk, your article does a terrific job of honoring the victims. Unfortunately you steer too far into politics to drive a political narrative. This vile person was not a Trump supporter; he supported Senator Sanders and after the election, he supported Dr. Jill Stein.

Attributing this vile person's actions to people on the right is yellow journalism. Through your logic, someone on the right could argue that Senator Sanders is aligned with nazis and the Oklahoma bomber because he wrote supportively on Facebook and Twitter about the Senator and these terrible people of the past.

You are seeking to promote division rather than dialogue. As you enrage our community, you could cause the violence you seek to condemn in this article.
Too many people in this country are using the "other side is terrible" as their excuse for doing reprehensible things as we saw this week with the repugnant display put on by Kathy Griffin.

You should lead by example rather than foment and inflame the anger. Maybe if we stop giving the crazies and the attention seekers their time in the spotlight, people who want to make real change in the world and help one another can have a productive conversation and get things done.

@Hone1989: I continue to be amazed how people on the right (you) don't see the connection to Trump's anti-Muslim rhetoric and this murderer's actions. Trump has yet to denounce the endorsement of the KKK during the campaign, or the support of white supremacists such as David Duke and Richard Spencer.

Did this anti-Muslim, bigoted "patriot" post his support of Bernie Sanders at one point? Sure did. But does that somehow mean that his views don't best align with the alt-right? Nope.

He's quoted as saying after his killings: "This is what Liberalism gets you."

You and other alt-righters can use the ONE point that he liked Bernie at one time... but that does not erase the connection between Trump and the alt-right's anti-Muslim rhetoric and white nationalism.

As far as I know, Bernie isn't anti-Muslim, anti-immigrant or a white nationalist...

@Douglas_Banter: You've proved my point. You are taking this demented vile person's actions and ascribing it to a political movement because it fits your narrative. You fail to see the gaping hole in your logic because you are blinded by anger and rage.
You are losing our argument.
I also think it is reprehensible for you to drop the "as far as I know Bernie isn't anti-Muslim, anti-immigrant or white nationalist" at the end of your comment. He is not any of these and has never acted in this way. Shame on you for insinuating it. Stick with facts. Don't try and weave a narrative that foments hatred and anger.

Getting back to the matter at hand, I agree that speech should be protected and I'm not interested in censoring the public square. But should speech that is designed to be hateful and discriminatory (or even violent) be protected?

@tommyspoon: who gets to decide what is designed to be hateful or discriminatory? Presidents Obama and Trump have had lots of things said about them in public that their supporters would argue were designed to be hateful, discriminatory or violent. Do you think there are enough people who are fair and impartial that could serve as the speech police? I don't think I would want to give that type of power over my first amendment rights to anyone.

The best way to move forward is to have a dialogue and talk with one another and not interject vile people like the man who attacked those three people into the discussion about finding common ground.

That was my objection to the direction the authors took this article.

"gaping hole in your logic" and yet you failed to explain exactly what you think that hole is.

Questions you will refuse to answer because it doesn't fit your narrative:

Anti-Muslim rhetoric can be best aligned with what party? Republicans? Liberals?

White supremacists views align best with what party? The Right-wing? Liberals?

Calling oneself a "patriot" is often heard at which party's rallies?

Denouncing Liberalism ("That's what Liberalism gets you" -Alt-Right "Patriot" Jeremy Christian after murdering two people) comes from which side of the political aisle?

Although the answer is glaringly obvious, you won't and can't answer... wanna prove me wrong?

The gaping hole in your logic is that this vile person is mentally unstable and you are attributing his comments to the other side. The other side can parrot your argument back at you saying supporters of Senator Sanders say hateful things and commit acts of violence.

Don't bring the crazies into the discussion because it is just as likely that the crazy might have liberal or progressive statements about their beliefs in their past. Basing your argument about the other side on the actions of crazy people dilutes it. The other side will just say your example is someone eveyone knows is crazy.

We have to have a sound foundation for our opinion and ideas. If we base our argument on crazies, we have as little hope of winning as the professor who went to Berkeley and beat up marchers with a bike lock. He lost the debate through his violence and will likely go to jail and become the poster child for liberals that will be continuously thrown back in our faces when we make an argument.

Man, you righties are dense. That isn't a "gaping hole" in my logic; it's just you not liking the facts I pointed out. Sorry bud, your tactics ain't gonna work on me.

And isn't it ever so convenient that you didn't answer any of my questions? (Questions that reinforce my point)

Answers:

The party that white nationalists best align themselves with is the right-wing. ("Patriot" Jeremy Christian called himself a white nationalist)

The party that people who spew anti-Muslim rhetoric align themselves with is... you got it: The right-wing. (Jeremy Christian was anti-Muslim... see the connection now?)

Why don't you Google "Rigt-Wing Extremists Bigger Threat Than ISIS" and educate yourself on the REAL threat to this nation.

Glad I could be of service to your ongoing education, though there's really no point in continuing in this back and forth... your worldview is quite twisted. Good day! :)

Douglas, if you are so blinded by rage and anger that you have to attribute the actions of a crazy person to those on the other side.

When you go off on these tirades, you make us look unreasonable , irrational and unable to have a productive discussion.

You make us look like the thugs to set fires and smashed windows in Berkeley.

I'm fighting for the soul of my party. Right now I have to fight establishment who cheated Senator Sanders out of the nomination. He would have easily beaten Trump. Instead, our party leadership stuck us with a candidate who is bought and paid for by Wall Street and who takes millions of dollars from countries that oppress women and gays and lesbians. I watched as the leadership of our party was taken away from the first Muslim serving in Congress and given to another establishment flunky.

On the other side, I need to take it back from goons who only want to fight and brawl and not win with ideas. In case you missed it, we lost the election because of the electoral map. Being angry, beating up people and trying to shut down anyone you disagree with doesn't win elections.

Here in our state, we have the same problem with the establishment flunkies. We had a governor who wasted hundreds of millions of dollars on our healthcare exchange which failed completely all the while he was doling out hundreds of thousands of dollars to his girlfriend.

The healthcare promises that were made to us have been broken. As a breast cancer survivor, these are serious problems that need to be fixed. All the screaming of those out there on our side who just want to brawl is not going to solve the problems or win over voters. Maybe instead of trying to pick fights and beat people up, you could start adding some constructive solutions to the discussion.