[TheRealThing]

In the course of your remarks, civil discourse becomes allowing minority youth to cut line at King's Island (an offense that still gets you thrown out of the park last time I was there) and becoming a doormat.

Basically, what I mean is toning down the hyper-charged rhetoric of good vs. evil and patriot vs. traitor. I am not saying spirited disagreement is not civil discourse. I am not saying that "your overall philosophy is bad for the country" is at odds with civil discourse. I am saying that the art of politics is a bit different from the "near anything goes" of campaigns and getting elected. Building consensus and, to use Trump's phrase, "the art of the deal" constitute the art of politics.

You and I disagree on gun control and other issues. However, I can plainly see you are sincere in your beliefs, think about them, are concerned about the country. I'd say our debates are pretty spirited, but my guess is we could take in a ballgame together and pray over a meal and not feel like the other was an incarnation of the devil simply because we debate pretty fiercely. And, furthermore, if a group of teens, black or green or blue, cut line in front of us, I'd say we'd voice up and have taken the time to know the number to call to get security.

The problem is not that you or I would not say something about it. But if the tendency to run over people were not so wide spread, there would not be a park policy in place to deal with such behavior, right? The problem is in the carve-outs that are bestowed upon special interest groups and the resultant attitude that is manifest in the actions of those who get them. They don't believe the rules apply to them and people who resist their bad behavior would be just another race hater in their eyes and frankly, any media who might report on such clashes. I think it is inexcusable for organizations such as the CBC to sprout up within the very halls of those sworn to uphold conditions for the common good. Just as was John McCain's insistence of injecting himself in spotlight fashion into the Presidential race by jumping on the Republican nominee. The whole thing was an obvious trap, and Trump should have recognized it for what it was at the git-go. But such are the characteristics of public discourse reduced to the personal level, political foodfight.

But I am all-in for toning it down. It is always the case, as words get more and more vicious the tensions created by them always leads to directly to the urge to take things to the level of violence. Most recognize where such feelings are taking them and pull in their horns, however, some do not or just don't care. Government's role is central to the problem here though in my view, as the war of words has taken the route which has been seen so often across time, rioting and violence. The law should not be applied in any sort of unilateral fashion, it should be the same for all as should be the penalty for all offenders. Taking sides as I believe the administration has done, has taken us farther down the road of civic insurrection. Now we're seeing marches for fanciful perceptions and ideological rationales. It has to stop. I have no doubt that you and I could enjoy a ballgame and a meal and have a great time doing so.