I see biases in a lot of the post here. I think much of it comes with countless hours of back and forth. maybe, some here are more committed to arguing than that of their actual debate or affiliations? Maybe, they just want to get under another's skin badly enough to agree with whatever the latter is? Like a line in the sand, metaphorically speaking. Which just happens to be dem\rep. Not saying people don't have their preferences. But once backed into a corner on an issue? Rather than say, "hey, you're right. I didn't realize, didn't know, or didn't ever think of it that way?" You get an unleashing, and insulting response instead. Which only fuels the fire further. Cuts the line deeper into the sand.
For me, when I look at the articles that based this thread, I try to consider, not the titles or affiliations. But rather the fact that one group of people are killing another. At an excessive rate. based in intolerance and hatred. I don't pick a side. I just rationalize the fact the killing is wrong and should be dealt with effectively. No one should receive their message, because it should not be tolerated by citizens of the world for a single moment. And anyone that has given assistance in these acts or the development of these groups, should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law, regardless of their titles, or stations in life. Because just like human trafficking, the illegal drug trade, and other elements of organized crime...? There are no accidents or coincidences. These violations are only permissible by the strengths awarded by the highest levels of corruption. And whether we realize it or not we enable these acts by giving coverage to those most guilty by blindly fighting for our affiliations, rather than recognizing the one true affiliation we all have in common.