Danger or Paranoia?

In the opinion piece listed below by Gen. Anthony J. Tata we hear his views on possible upcoming threats to the country. As a general he does have quite a bit of credibility when addressing possible threats to the country, but how far fetched does it have to be to call it paranoia? He compares the attack on US and Afgan officials Thursday to the "growing threat" in our country. Stating that with the people opposing Trump within his own administration and the violent protests occurring the country could be witness to more violence in the near future. Clearly this is directed toward people who are already of the paranoid type who share similar feelings of impending doom, many of which are commonly referred to as "preppers". My personal opinion is that this sounds more like an overactive imagination.

https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/will-america-survive-the-growing-insider-threat-in-our-homeland-today

The dangers of middle of the road politics

In the article listed below lays out the struggle that Joe Donnelly of Indiana is experiencing in his move from the Democratic party to a more middle of the road state of view, supporting certain views from both sides. Donnelly is being criticized by Democrats for straying away from the typical leftist views such as socialized health care and is receiving flak for doing so, even though he is still opposing some conservative ideas such as Trump's tax laws. This article clearly highlights some of the problems with today's politics and why we are going to be stuck with a clear two party system for some time. It shows that any attempt to blur the lines is met with scrutiny and criticism, scaring most away from even trying.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/21/us/politics/joe-donnelly-indiana-braun-trump.html?rref=collection%2Fsectioncollection%2Fpolitics&action=click&contentCollection=politics&region=stream&module=stream_unit&version=latest&contentPlacement=3&pgtype=sectionfront

Anna Coulter, an author and political commentator frequently seen on Fox News, talks briefly about the allegations against Brett Kavanaugh concerning inappropriate behavior towards women. Obviously meant to be read by the right-leaning public who are simply seeking to be told what they are already thinking. She essentially berates the left for presumably calling wolf by using a handful of women to accuse Kavanaugh of sexual misconduct. By pointing out holes and inconsistencies in the accusers’ stories such as a lack of information or evidence other than their own word Coulter goes on to refer to the women as crazy ladies. Also pointing out either a history of disturbing behavior or a life in which is inconsistent with that portrayed by the accusers adds to her argument. This takes up a large portion of her writing in which she goes on to take apart the second accuser by stating that she (Juilie Swetnik) has not only had a restraining order put against her but was sued to inappropriate behavior and falsely accusing coworkers. In the end of her argument Coulter belittles the democrats for trying to attack Kavanaugh for everything, even drinking beer in high school. So the question stands, are her harsh words any better than the left’s?

Article in question: http://www.anncoulter.com/columns/2018-10-03.html#read_more