Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate
I have no interest in debates over whether or not the alt-right qualify as Nazis or if white nationalist Richard Spencer should be considered one when he claims he doesn't identify as such. He calls for ethnic cleansing and for racial extermination and was punched in the face; I wouldn't have punched him, but I wouldn't shed a tear for his pain given his rhetoric. I can't say I'm all that concerned with getting to grips with how Informant categorizes different hate groups.
Wait, is this going back to the Arrowverse crossover, and Alex's "punch a Nazi" comment? Because I couldn't care less if Richard Spencer is punched in the face, however,you are ignoring a much larger movement, which has taken to labeling anyone that isn't extreme-left as a "Nazi" and then pushing the "punch a Nazi" idea as a way of justifying violence against anyone that you don't agree with. I've seen liberals labeled "alt-right" (a term which pretty much has no meaning at this point). I've seen Jews labeled "Nazi". I've seen non-white people labeled white nationalists. These aren't legitimate claims. These are excuses for calls to violence, or the destruction of peoples' lives based on their political views (which are sometimes pretty liberal).
In this case, I'm just classifying one hate group: The far left. They are a hateful, violent bunch of bigots.
I'm also not terribly interested in explanations on how Trump bragging about sexual assault doesn't count as a confession and how he hasn't professed racist views -- except to say that people are free to offer their views but have no business declaring that those who disagree are mentally ill.
Trump once said, "I could stand in the middle of Fifth Avenue and shoot somebody, okay, and I wouldn't lose any voters, okay?... It's, like, incredible."
Do you believe that Trump should be arrested for shooting someone in the middle of Fifth Avenue?
My view: the 2016 election was subjected to an unprecedented level of hacking from Russian agents. The FBI is investigating whether or not these agents coordinated and collaborated with the Trump campaign, a worthwhile avenue of inquiry. Christopher Steele's distaste for Trump is not a disqualifying factor in his information being used to open an investigation as espionage and law enforcement constantly rely on informants biased against the party on whom they're reporting and such information is not treated as proof in itself, but as information that must be corroborated or disproven in the course of an investigation. A biased informant is a given in any investigation as such parties tend not to be neutral.
In addition, Trump's denials of collusion have been matched with (a) firing James Comey which Trump confessed on TV was to interfere with the investigation (b) being unable to keep his story straight on why he fired Comey and (c) seeking to fire Mueller for the same reasons. Nobody goes to this level of effort if they're not scared of what will be discovered.
Did you notice that you didn't actually say what the Russians are supposed to have done with Trump, aside from mentioning that it's completely unprecedented? Do you know what the actual accusations are? Do you know what any of the evidence is? Or do you just have such blind faith that those pesky little details don't matter?
Devin Nunes misrepresents law enforcement (and now espionage) to stir phony outrage and Nunes' claim that Hillary Clinton colluded with Russia (to sabotage her own campaign?!) is unbelievably stupid. Nunes is another person to add to the list of dubious alt-right white nationalists, Birthers, Men's Right Activists, Sarah Palin, Cassie Jaye, James O'Keefe, Paul Elam, Roy Moore and other peculiarities in the current political climate.
You can't honestly believe that the suggestion here is that Hillary was sabotaging her own campaign.
And how can you put Cassie Jaye on any of your lists? You've made it abundantly clear that you are unwilling to listen to a word she says, or watch her film (much less the many other videos made up of interviews that didn't fit into her film, which she's put on YouTube). How can you even comment on the woman despite refusing to acknowledge any information regarding her?
Look, it's fine if you don't want to waste your time listening to every point of view, or reading every piece of information about these big issues. That's cool. Not everyone is into it. But if that's the case, I think that you should stop posting grand comments about those supposed crimes, supposed racism, supposed hate groups and supposed alt-righters that you're not interested in reading about or listening to. You're blindly swinging a bat, hoping to hit a pinata, but you keep hitting the wrong target. I don't think you're full of hatred or malice. I don't think you're stupid. But these are large issues, and it doesn't help anyone if we're basing arguments on headlines, tweets and general impressions. If there's not a legitimate conversation to be had here, then let's just stop pretending that we're having one.