A democrat president nominates a person for the Supreme Court. Hearings are not used to demolish the character of the nominee or to lie about the choice. Republicans, generally polite, agree that elections have consequences and a president gets to choose his nominee and usually the nominee gets the votes of the vast majority of the Republican senators.
A Republican nominates a Supreme Court Justice and then it begins – the tearing down of the reputation, the lies about what America would look like if this nominee were on the Court, the witnesses and speeches and whatever they can use to destroy this person.
And though some Dems may vote for the President’s choice, the majority of the dems will vote no.
Consider the same kind of behavior for almost any other thing you want.
Consider how often the Tea Party members, Republicans in the congress, the Republican President and his supporters are called all sorts of hideous things. Nazis, treasonous (punishable by death), racists – you name it.
Show me the Republican public official who uses such name calling of Dems. More often there is a discussion of why we disagree with them. If we call them socialists, it’s because that is what they call themselves.
If we call them anti-semites, well, it is difficult not to the way they speak. But generally we talk about disagreements rather than call them names.
In colleges the fight against freedom of speech of those you may disagree with does not come from the right. It is leftists who promote violence and refuse to allow freedom for certain speakers to speak.
The IRS under Obama singled out conservative groups and delayed their ability to get tax exempt status. I can’t recall the IRS under any Republican president doing that against liberals.
Facebook punishes and restricts only conservatives, never leftists. Same with other social media.
And finally the press helps out the left by using the same tactics as the dems.
I ask you is civil discourse possible under these conditions?