Sweet, I enjoy talking (and reading) about other people's political beliefs.

"The main limitation of cross-movement comparisons is that extremist connections to killings are easier to determine for some movements than for others. For example, white supremacists, who often display many racist and white supremacist tattoos, or who may be documented as white supremacists by gang investigators or corrections officials, are often easily identifiable. In contrast, it may be more difficult for police or media to identify a suspect’s anti-government extremist associations. This issue comes up more often with non-ideological killings. It is likely that non-ideological murders committed by extremists other than white supremacists are underrepresented in ADL’s data."

Sounds like ADL agrees with me: some extremist movements are easier to id than others.

Well I suppose when you get to define what left wing politics is, one can easily define an extremist left wing killer as not actually left wing. I could do the same with right wing killers if I get to define what right wing is.

Right wing politics are generally very pro-law and order: it's against the law to kill so actually, what the ADL considers a right wing killing might not actually be right wing.

Convenient!

If we are calling law and order right wing, should we include killings by police officers in the right wing murder statistics? 

Not all. Some police uses of deadly force are perfectly justified thus not murder. And when discussing death statistics, we should include the caveat that police are employed to sometimes go into potentially-dangerous situations. Of course the occurrence of death is going to be higher in their arena.

An excellent segment (from an independent media outlet, obviously). Biden is winning me over, I certainly wasn't expecting any of this from someone who shared decision making with, the all-talk-no-action, Obama.

Well that bit was a bit of a joke. 

But that is very often how left wing politics was defined. The original distinction was based on people on the right supported the French monarch, and the people on the left opposed the monarch. 

I think right wing politics being "law and order" is more just virtue signaling. A way to feel superior, morally justified over left wingers, despite the fact that the vast majority of left winger and right wingers, would agree to the vast majority of the same morals. 

I think reducing conservative support for "law and order" to virtue signaling is simplifying an interesting issue a bit too much. I personally feel like a lot of it comes down to the heart of Conservatism: the preservation of traditional institutions and the status quo. The police are largely seen as a means of preserving that status quo. That is why a lot of Conservatives (particularly Conservatives who have traditionally benefited from police bias and the systems they protect) will say they support the police with their full chest, but then lash out and attack them when they see them as betraying that goal (See the Conservative response to the Capital Police after 1/6). 

Conservative support for the police is not just support for the police, it is support for societal tradition, and as such, that support is contingent upon institutional support of those systems. 

"Law and order" as used by Nixon and George Wallace in 1968 is a racial dog-whistle. "Law and order" is certainly a joke when the top law enforcement official in Texas dodges process servers and has a lot of serious criminal charges against him that have yet to be answered. 

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2022/9/30/23379411/texas-ken-paxton-subpoena-fraud-charges-fbi-investigation

Behold "The Party of Law & Order," everyone:

Such respect for the law. Such orderly behavior. 🙄

Here's hoping you weren't among those defending the rioting of 2020.