You've already pointed that out. I regret that I gave you the opportunity to once again point it out. I got it the first time and it gets boring hearing about it over and over. It's all interesting, but this is still the U.S., not Mexico, however it got to be that way.

This is the first time that Coulter's viewpoint has been tendered. There is no need to bring all that old stuff up as if it somehow discredits what she says. I doesn't. But a not very nice try.

Perhaps she should have read his manifesto.
Then she would have seen this statement.

"Actually the Hispanic community was not my target before I read The Great Replacement."

Pretty far stretch to blame that on Armando Navarro, Roberto Rodriguez or some civil action group.

But perhaps Ann Coulter feels guilty about saying this, though I doubt it.

Ann Coulter, appearing as a guest on Jeanine Pirro’s Fox News show, offered a dispassionately violent suggestion about what could be done to stem the flow of migrants: “You can shoot invaders.”

This doesn't address Coulter's article that I posted. It seems that no matter what is actually said, it simply provides you with an opportunity to change the subject and drag us back into whatever bone you have to pick. That gets old. But I do understand that it does relieve you of the burden of rebutting or disproving or even of making a pertinent response.

Ann Coulter who said “You can shoot invaders.” then claims no culpability when a man decides to shoot people he views as invaders.
Her “argument” has no basis in reality.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

You just made her point. If you deny that inflammatory rhetoric from the left leads to violence but that Trump using perfectly valid words is the reason for mass shootings, then your opinion has no basis in reality. Constantly ragging on Trump for merely using a word, which accurately describes a situation, then giving a pass to all the pols and organizations that accuse him and white males and Republicans of being fascists, Nazis, etc., with no real basis for saying so, repeatedly, shows what a hypocrite who makes stuff up you really are.

Her point is saying “You can shoot invaders” has no effect?
Trump’s Denialists, of which you are one, must deny.
Because if voters realize that Trump is not only divisive but also a person who provokes terrorists, his presidency cannot be rescued.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I was referring to the article by her that I posted and to which you had a pseudo, or rather non-existent, reply. You changed the subject. I attempted to get back to the subject. You refuse. As I said, you ramble on about other things so you don't have to respond. Which is OK. Don't respond. But just don't post one of your knee jerk other hates as if it is a response.

I don't know about her "you can shoot invaders" remark. And I certainly don't know the context nor intent of what she said. I have learned that trusting to your interpretation of that could very well be misleading, or entirely wrong.

And I'm not interested in, nor agree with, everything that Coulter says. I thought that the article by her that I posted, and to which you pretended to reply to, was enlightening as to the one-sided, even hypocritical, if not entirely fallacious, condemning Trump of inspiring violence because he used certain words.

I understand why you would try to evade any reasonable discussion of how that is not fair nor accurate--or even an outride lie.

Her article proposed that the shooter was influenced by a viewpoint that is held by very few as opposed to something broadcast on Fox, called as such by Trump in rallies time after time.

Keep denying, perhaps you actually believe that Trump’s speech has no effect and he is using those words to join people together to solve a problem.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Words are like guns
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

And then you end by bringing in Trump, totally ignoring the distinct possibility that the shooter was influenced by the actual massive illegal immigration and the verbal threats of Mexican Supremacists that have been going on for a long time and are fully explicated rhetoric, not just single words, or supposed "code" or "dog whistles."

As you say, keep denying.

I don't deny that some crazy might take any word, no matter how legitimate or pertinent, and go off on a killing spree. But I'm going to point the finger on the shooter. That we cannot use legitimate language to describe events because some crazy may go batchit is ridiculous.

You seem to want to deny that rhetoric from the left can be effective enough to cause violence. The leftist media and politicians are fairly quiet about the possibility that their rhetoric, which is more direct and explicit, not just dog whistle stuff, influenced the Dayton shooter, who was a Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren fan. But boy, are they going hyper over the El Paso shooting because they somehow conclude that it's Trump's fault.