Eric Frein is not right wing, he's described to having "fairly liberal views."
>" — he did not seem to have strong political leanings.
"He had some fairly liberal views, and he had some fairly conservative views. Some maybe were a little farther to the right than what most people would give. ... He didn't follow a line. He was his own person. He wasn't just a cookie cutter of another group or entity. He definitely had his own independent mind-set,"..."<
Who is Eric Frein? | lehighvalleylive.com
Just because I'm really, REALLY sick of the hacks on both sides desperately trying to play the "This crazy belongs to you and I'll desperately try to imply he's just a standard [left/right]ist!" game...
In terms of Loughner
The Tea Party does not want people to die. Al Sharpton does not want people to die. Democrats do not want people to die. Republicans do not want people to die. Peoples "rhetoric" is not being done with a desire for people to be murdered. Stop this pathetic and repeated attempts to blame groups for crimes they in no way advocated for simply because some lunatic shares a random view point with them here or there.
The Loughner point isn't about whether or not he's left or right, tea party or not. It's more to the point that initially....regardless of the fact that in the end it was unabashedly false...people attempted to blame Sarah Palin and the Tea Party and suggested their "rhetoric" was responsible and contributed to the death. And before anyone knew for certain this guy was or wasn't a fan of Palin or the tea party, people...RIGHTFULLY...on the right claimed that attacks on the tea party and attempts to place blame on them or Sarah Palin for such a thing was ridiculous because Palin nor the Tea Party actively advocated for violence or crime and their statements or "rhetoric" in no way meant for crime to occur, and that the only person to "blame" was the shooter.
The exact same thing goes here as it relates to Sharpton.
As it relates to the entirely separate protesters that had nothing to do with Sharpton, there's a more legitimate argument to be made as they at least are directly "inciting" that specific criminal act...and even then, we'd need to see some evidence that the killer actually heard and was in part motivated by said protests. But at least in that case the hypothetical makes some sense since they, unlike Sharpton, actively were advocating for illegal activity.
"I am appalled that somebody who is the nominee...would take that kind of position"
"A court took away a presidency"
"...the brother of a man running for president was the governor of the state..."
It's horrifying because Trump is blunt instead of making overt implications.
Fox News' Double Standard For Right-Wing Cop Killers | Blog | Media Matters for America
This country has gone stark raving mad.
Horse sense is the thing a horse has which keeps it from betting on people. ~W.C. Fields
However, you've got things backward. Bad things happen (to black people), then Sharpton shows up like a bad penny. The man never met a tv camera he didn't like.
That does not mean that he has any responsibility for the death of those 2 NYC police officers. He doesn't.