18 ms·

"A house divided against itself cannot stand." -- Abraham Lincoln Pretty worrying to observe the polarization in the US where IMO both left and right are full

by bitL 9y ago

"A house divided against itself cannot stand." -- Abraham Lincoln Pretty worrying to observe the polarization in the US where IMO both left and right are full of extremist views and moderates have no audible voice.

jacquesm 9y ago
> both left and right are full of extremist views Again?
- humanrebar 9y ago
  If you think the polarization of politics contributes to violence, it seems like a fair point. Honestly, it's probably too soon to be making political points. But then people are looking for political wins in the aftermath (resignations and shunning I guess?), so I don't see how that sort of thing is on the table. Seems like uneven expectations about what decent people should do in the face of tragedy.
  - jacquesm 9y ago
    > If you think the polarization of politics contributes to violence, it seems like a fair point. I'm sure it does. Now, who exactly is doing the polarizing here? > Honestly, it's probably too soon to be making political points. On the contrary, it is probably way too late. Now the question is how much damage will be done before the landslide is arrested. My sense of that: all bets are off. > But then people are looking for political wins in the aftermath (resignations and shunning I guess?), so I don't see how that sort of thing is on the table. Giving up on the administration is not a political win, it is damage control. > Seems like uneven expectations about what decent people should do in the face of tragedy. It depends on your definition of 'decent' how you read that.
    - humanrebar 9y ago
      > Giving up on the administration is not a political win, it is damage control. I gave up on Trump in the winter of 2015/2016. I'm way ahead of you there. I'm just saying people have valid thoughts (polarization in general leads to t his) that might be considered premature. But if we're going to be evenhanded, angry left-wing people need to honor a cool off period for a while. Keep in mind that moderates who dislike Trump from the start can fairly blame left-wing shenanigans, at least partly, for the rise of Trump. Lumping them in with racists and downvoting them isn't healthy dialogue.
      - jacquesm 9y ago
        If you gave up on Trump then that means that you at some point held him closer than you do today. I always thought he was a blow-hard and I'm terribly disappointed that someone like him can be elevated to any position of power. I really hoped that America was wiser than this. > Keep in mind that moderates who dislike Trump from the start can fairly blame left-wing shenanigans, at least partly, for the rise of Trump. Yes, but it would be a fig-leaf. A large number of them are pretty much on the record as being pissed off that a black guy became president. America really has a race problem even if on paper it is all pretty good. Especially the heartland. Denying this is allowing it room to grow. > Lumping them in with racists and downvoting them isn't healthy dialogue. Well, if you purposefully skew the weighting of the responses of the various parties to the point where you feel the violence on the 'left' is the equal of the violence on the 'right' then you're part of the problem. It becomes an 'us versus them' thing and staking out a position in such a polarized environment is something that you should do with great care. I'm not aware of any left leaning politician that has tacitly or openly condoned any violence on the left and some (definitely not all, for instance the Scalise shooting) was a direct response to other violence. To toss that all onto the same heap is disingenuous at best. If you want 'healthy dialogue' you're going to have to come to terms with inherent biases first. But that's hard to do.
        humanrebar 9y ago
        I moved from "everyone deserves to be heard out" to "this guy is a bully and a bad person in many other ways". It was clear when he made fun of a man's disability and just grew from there. To be fair to the GOP, Trump basically did a hostile takeover with a plurality of the vote on the right against a very fractured field. I'm not advocating for a pissing contest over who is more violent. I'm advocating for people to treat each other decently even if they disagree. I'm advocating for rational dialogue. I think this isn't the moment to win points for the left. Partly because I think the case isn't strong, but also because I don't see it solving the real problem of divisive American politics. The left can't "win" enough to forever banish Trumps from power. It only causes escalation, at least so far.
Pharylon 9y ago
This is not a "both sides" issue, never has been.
croon 9y ago
Nope, mostly just the right. https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2014/06/yes-polarization-is-asymmetric-and-conservatives-are-worse/373044/ https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2014/06/yes-pol... http://news.wgbh.org/2017/03/15/politics-government/major-new-study-shows-political-polarization-mainly-right-wing http://news.wgbh.org/2017/03/15/politics-government/major-ne...
- mantas 9y ago
  Looking from across the pond, the left seem to have went full bananas. The identity politics and pushing "undocumented" migrants angle would be quite extreme in most of Europe. BLM look ridiculous too. While the right seem to be business as usual. Much more right than Euro right, but that's it.
  - woofyman 9y ago
    >BLM look ridiculous too Protesting that cops kill black people and face no legal consequences is ridiculous?
    - humanrebar 9y ago
      I think it's the riots and assassinations. Maybe blocking traffic depending on who you ask. Of course, Black Lives Matter isn't a well defined group, so you can't blame all of them for the actions of a few. But that's true of people who want <insert right leaning policy proposal here>.
      - viridian 9y ago
        Don't forget disrupting pride parades. BLM really has had it out for the LGBT community in the midwest this year, for whatever reason.
    - fastball 9y ago
      Yes. The idea that there are cops on safari hunting black people is a fundamentally absurd notion. When it is clear that the officer was involved in a "bad shoot", those officers are removed from duty and charged with murder/manslaughter. If you can point me to one that was not, I'd be very interested to learn more. However, it is often difficult to determine a bad shoot from a "good" one, which is the primary issue. Cops disproportionately target black Americans because black Americans commit a disproportionate percentage of the crime in America. And you don't need to stop at the overall crime rate, you can look at how black Americans kill a disproportionate number of cops. There were 511 officers killed in felonious incidents and 540 offenders from 2004 to 2013, according to FBI reports. Among the total offenders, 52 percent were white, and 43 percent were black.[1] And according to the 2010 US Census [2], the racial split in the US was: White: 72.4% Black: 12.6% I think the numbers speak for themselves. Do these numbers justify cops killing unarmed civilians that pose no threat? OF COURSE NOT. But that is almost never the case. Remember, cops are not the military (they are not tried in internal military tribunals), and they do not have immunity. At the end of the day, it is up to the DA to bring charges against a police officer, and the DA will usually not bring said charges if that DA does not think he/she can prove in a court of law that it was a bad shoot. So yes, there are racist cops. But that should only be a crisis if you believe the US' entire justice system to be racist against black people. [1] - https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2015/01/09/are-black-or-white-offenders-more-likely-to-kill-police/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2015/01/... [2] - https://www.census.gov/prod/cen2010/briefs/c2010br-02.pdf https://www.census.gov/prod/cen2010/briefs/c2010br-02.pdf
mrbiber 9y ago
This is not about some general vague problem with "extremism" of which supposedly all sides are guilty. This is about the emergence of a right-wing terrorist movement which has already committed several attacks. When your first reaction to this is to to bring in some unspecified crimes of the left, then this calls into question whether you understand the seriousness of the situation. There is a real chance that real, actual fascists kill many more people and perhaps even gain more political power. We can talk about this without engaging in some false equivalence.
- marcoperaza 9y ago
  You're honestly putting too much stock in the media's narrative. Were you not watching the violence coming from left-wing protesters for the last couple of years? Such as Antifa and similar groups smashing towns and beating people with fists and shovels. It's a miracle the guy they were beating on the streets of Berkeley didn't die. Edit: and how about the Scalise shooting or the police officers killed at the hands of BLM supporters. Apparently those don't arouse the same response. It turns out there's violent people of all political stripes who would do us harm.
  - woofyman 9y ago
    There's a time for that discussion. But not now. Nazis, KKK, and white supremacists terrorized a town and killed a women. And our morally depraved president couldn't bring himself to put a name to evil.
    - humanrebar 9y ago
      That's fair. But people in this thread are already comparing left and right wing politics. If it's too soon for this discussion, there are up-thread comments it would be appropriate to object to as well.
    - nmbr213 9y ago
      > Nazis, KKK, and white supremacists terrorized a town They had a permit to hold that meeting. They could've showed off their bigotry peacefully, but police pushed them where Antifa counter-protested so both sides started to shout at each other which turned into a fight. It happened that way in Berkeley. Now it happened in Charlottetown. And it's going to happen again unless police starts doing it's job and protect people from themselves and prevent those clashes. > killed a women. When a muslim plows into a crowd it's a lone wolf and we should jump to conclusions. But now that it was a white guy the second it happened the media reached the consensus that it was an act of terrorism. This kind of double standard is what fuels white supremacists. > And our morally depraved president couldn't bring himself to put a name to evil. He specifically named KKK, Nazis and white supremacists. But you wouldn't hear about that thanks to your echo bubble.
nl 9y ago
How can resigning in response to failure to condemn the KKK and Nazis be considered an extreme position? It seems to me that "I condemn Nazis and the KKK" is pretty much a "motherhood"[1] statement and you'd have to be pretty extreme not to make it. Even Jeff Sessions condemned it, and many of those on the left consider him a complete bogeyman. So while increased polarization might be a problem in US politics, I'm not at all sure we can see that here. Edit: And who on earth downvotes a comment like this? I don't need to complain about downvotes, but what on earth are people thinking here? Is it people who support Nazis who downvote this, or is there some subtle point here I'm missing? [1] Motherhood statements are those statements that politicians make that "everyone" agrees with; eg "I think motherhood is great"
- zimpenfish 9y ago
  > Is it people who support Nazis who downvote this There are certainly a lot of people on here who are very keen to point out that the Nazis aren't that bad because [bullshit reasons], yes.
  - nl 9y ago
    Are there? I mean, I see lots of false equivalence arguments and (possibly fair, possibly not) criticisms of political violence from left-leaning groups. But surely no one is arguing "Nazis aren't bad" on HN?
    - viridian 9y ago
      >I see lots of false equivalence arguments and (possibly fair, possibly not) If they are fair then it's just equivalence, not false equivalence. I feel like this has become the new vogue term thrown around since Charlottesville happened, and it's seeing a lot of misuse. Most people don't even bother to explain why the equivalence is false, thus attempting to shut down the conversation in the manner of the fallacy fallacy. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_fallacy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_fallacy
      - 9y ago
pavlov 9y ago
I don't understand the claim that moderates have no voice in the United States. I'm not American, but have spent quite a lot of time in the country. From my point of view, most of the media is moderate left -- and they have a very loud voice indeed. The extreme left exists but has very little visibility compared to France, for example. (That is convenient for right-wing press like Breitbart, because it lets them paint boogeymen inside the outlines of shapeless outrage-based movements like Black Lives Matter.) American moderate right is a strange group. Polls suggest they have a lot of support, but their leaders seem to have decided not to use their voice. It's not like they're being silenced -- more like they're afraid to speak up. A few people like Senator Jeff Flake are a counterexample that shows what the American right could be, if they decided to stop pandering to an incompatible mishmash of base instincts at the fringe of their party.
- humanrebar 9y ago
  > A few people like Senator Jeff Flake are a counterexample that shows what the American right could be... I think you're understating how much of the American right dislikes Trump. Actual conservatives supported Cruz and Rubio (both of whom have been very consistently critical of Trump's shenanigans). Ben Sasse and Rand Paul are also very vocal. In print, National Review, The Federalist, Commentary, and similar news organizations have been against Trump since the Republican primary, not in small part to his playing footsie with racists.
  - op00to 9y ago
    What's the point of "disliking" Trump if they don't get rid of him?
    - humanrebar 9y ago
      Well, Cruz didn't exactly throw in the towel and become a fan. And there's always next time.
      - hsod 9y ago
robin_reala 9y ago
There is no left in US politics, there’s just hard right and centre right. Seeing as there seems to be some disagreement to this post, let me back it up with recent US election pages from politicalcompass.org: https://www.politicalcompass.org/uselection2016 https://www.politicalcompass.org/uselection2016 https://www.politicalcompass.org/uselection2012 https://www.politicalcompass.org/uselection2012 https://www.politicalcompass.org/uselection2008 https://www.politicalcompass.org/uselection2008 https://www.politicalcompass.org/uselection2004 https://www.politicalcompass.org/uselection2004 There are a few choices for very minor candidates (Bernie Sanders notwithstanding) but very little mainstream choice that’s not wedged over to the right hand side.
calafrax 9y ago
when wealth and income disparity are at an all time high then for the ruling class paralysis is the best policy. the only voice that matters is the voice of wall street and the voice of the corporate elite. as long as politically irrelevant people on the left and right are busy yelling at each other about irrelevant issues that have no effect of wealth and income distribution then everything is going according to plan.
drzaiusapelord 9y ago
How is being against race hatred not a moderate position?
Zigurd 9y ago
There is no symmetry or balance in this. This is the fulfillment of the warnings that the alt right is a white supremacist movement, that Breitbart is their platform, and that Trump is their candidate. There is no countervailing "side" to that.

by bitL 9y ago

jacquesm 9y ago

> both left and right are full of extremist views Again?

humanrebar 9y ago
If you think the polarization of politics contributes to violence, it seems like a fair point. Honestly, it's probably too soon to be making political points. But then people are looking for political wins in the aftermath (resignations and shunning I guess?), so I don't see how that sort of thing is on the table. Seems like uneven expectations about what decent people should do in the face of tragedy.
- jacquesm 9y ago
  > If you think the polarization of politics contributes to violence, it seems like a fair point. I'm sure it does. Now, who exactly is doing the polarizing here? > Honestly, it's probably too soon to be making political points. On the contrary, it is probably way too late. Now the question is how much damage will be done before the landslide is arrested. My sense of that: all bets are off. > But then people are looking for political wins in the aftermath (resignations and shunning I guess?), so I don't see how that sort of thing is on the table. Giving up on the administration is not a political win, it is damage control. > Seems like uneven expectations about what decent people should do in the face of tragedy. It depends on your definition of 'decent' how you read that.
  - humanrebar 9y ago
    > Giving up on the administration is not a political win, it is damage control. I gave up on Trump in the winter of 2015/2016. I'm way ahead of you there. I'm just saying people have valid thoughts (polarization in general leads to t his) that might be considered premature. But if we're going to be evenhanded, angry left-wing people need to honor a cool off period for a while. Keep in mind that moderates who dislike Trump from the start can fairly blame left-wing shenanigans, at least partly, for the rise of Trump. Lumping them in with racists and downvoting them isn't healthy dialogue.
    - jacquesm 9y ago
      If you gave up on Trump then that means that you at some point held him closer than you do today. I always thought he was a blow-hard and I'm terribly disappointed that someone like him can be elevated to any position of power. I really hoped that America was wiser than this. > Keep in mind that moderates who dislike Trump from the start can fairly blame left-wing shenanigans, at least partly, for the rise of Trump. Yes, but it would be a fig-leaf. A large number of them are pretty much on the record as being pissed off that a black guy became president. America really has a race problem even if on paper it is all pretty good. Especially the heartland. Denying this is allowing it room to grow. > Lumping them in with racists and downvoting them isn't healthy dialogue. Well, if you purposefully skew the weighting of the responses of the various parties to the point where you feel the violence on the 'left' is the equal of the violence on the 'right' then you're part of the problem. It becomes an 'us versus them' thing and staking out a position in such a polarized environment is something that you should do with great care. I'm not aware of any left leaning politician that has tacitly or openly condoned any violence on the left and some (definitely not all, for instance the Scalise shooting) was a direct response to other violence. To toss that all onto the same heap is disingenuous at best. If you want 'healthy dialogue' you're going to have to come to terms with inherent biases first. But that's hard to do.
      - humanrebar 9y ago
        I moved from "everyone deserves to be heard out" to "this guy is a bully and a bad person in many other ways". It was clear when he made fun of a man's disability and just grew from there. To be fair to the GOP, Trump basically did a hostile takeover with a plurality of the vote on the right against a very fractured field. I'm not advocating for a pissing contest over who is more violent. I'm advocating for people to treat each other decently even if they disagree. I'm advocating for rational dialogue. I think this isn't the moment to win points for the left. Partly because I think the case isn't strong, but also because I don't see it solving the real problem of divisive American politics. The left can't "win" enough to forever banish Trumps from power. It only causes escalation, at least so far.

Pharylon 9y ago

This is not a "both sides" issue, never has been.

croon 9y ago

Nope, mostly just the right. https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2014/06/yes-polarization-is-asymmetric-and-conservatives-are-worse/373044/ https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2014/06/yes-pol... http://news.wgbh.org/2017/03/15/politics-government/major-new-study-shows-political-polarization-mainly-right-wing http://news.wgbh.org/2017/03/15/politics-government/major-ne...

mantas 9y ago
Looking from across the pond, the left seem to have went full bananas. The identity politics and pushing "undocumented" migrants angle would be quite extreme in most of Europe. BLM look ridiculous too. While the right seem to be business as usual. Much more right than Euro right, but that's it.
- woofyman 9y ago
  >BLM look ridiculous too Protesting that cops kill black people and face no legal consequences is ridiculous?
  - humanrebar 9y ago
    I think it's the riots and assassinations. Maybe blocking traffic depending on who you ask. Of course, Black Lives Matter isn't a well defined group, so you can't blame all of them for the actions of a few. But that's true of people who want <insert right leaning policy proposal here>.
    - viridian 9y ago
      Don't forget disrupting pride parades. BLM really has had it out for the LGBT community in the midwest this year, for whatever reason.
  - fastball 9y ago
    Yes. The idea that there are cops on safari hunting black people is a fundamentally absurd notion. When it is clear that the officer was involved in a "bad shoot", those officers are removed from duty and charged with murder/manslaughter. If you can point me to one that was not, I'd be very interested to learn more. However, it is often difficult to determine a bad shoot from a "good" one, which is the primary issue. Cops disproportionately target black Americans because black Americans commit a disproportionate percentage of the crime in America. And you don't need to stop at the overall crime rate, you can look at how black Americans kill a disproportionate number of cops. There were 511 officers killed in felonious incidents and 540 offenders from 2004 to 2013, according to FBI reports. Among the total offenders, 52 percent were white, and 43 percent were black.[1] And according to the 2010 US Census [2], the racial split in the US was: White: 72.4% Black: 12.6% I think the numbers speak for themselves. Do these numbers justify cops killing unarmed civilians that pose no threat? OF COURSE NOT. But that is almost never the case. Remember, cops are not the military (they are not tried in internal military tribunals), and they do not have immunity. At the end of the day, it is up to the DA to bring charges against a police officer, and the DA will usually not bring said charges if that DA does not think he/she can prove in a court of law that it was a bad shoot. So yes, there are racist cops. But that should only be a crisis if you believe the US' entire justice system to be racist against black people. [1] - https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2015/01/09/are-black-or-white-offenders-more-likely-to-kill-police/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2015/01/... [2] - https://www.census.gov/prod/cen2010/briefs/c2010br-02.pdf https://www.census.gov/prod/cen2010/briefs/c2010br-02.pdf

mrbiber 9y ago

This is not about some general vague problem with "extremism" of which supposedly all sides are guilty. This is about the emergence of a right-wing terrorist movement which has already committed several attacks. When your first reaction to this is to to bring in some unspecified crimes of the left, then this calls into question whether you understand the seriousness of the situation. There is a real chance that real, actual fascists kill many more people and perhaps even gain more political power. We can talk about this without engaging in some false equivalence.

marcoperaza 9y ago
You're honestly putting too much stock in the media's narrative. Were you not watching the violence coming from left-wing protesters for the last couple of years? Such as Antifa and similar groups smashing towns and beating people with fists and shovels. It's a miracle the guy they were beating on the streets of Berkeley didn't die. Edit: and how about the Scalise shooting or the police officers killed at the hands of BLM supporters. Apparently those don't arouse the same response. It turns out there's violent people of all political stripes who would do us harm.
- woofyman 9y ago
  There's a time for that discussion. But not now. Nazis, KKK, and white supremacists terrorized a town and killed a women. And our morally depraved president couldn't bring himself to put a name to evil.
  - humanrebar 9y ago
    That's fair. But people in this thread are already comparing left and right wing politics. If it's too soon for this discussion, there are up-thread comments it would be appropriate to object to as well.
  - nmbr213 9y ago
    > Nazis, KKK, and white supremacists terrorized a town They had a permit to hold that meeting. They could've showed off their bigotry peacefully, but police pushed them where Antifa counter-protested so both sides started to shout at each other which turned into a fight. It happened that way in Berkeley. Now it happened in Charlottetown. And it's going to happen again unless police starts doing it's job and protect people from themselves and prevent those clashes. > killed a women. When a muslim plows into a crowd it's a lone wolf and we should jump to conclusions. But now that it was a white guy the second it happened the media reached the consensus that it was an act of terrorism. This kind of double standard is what fuels white supremacists. > And our morally depraved president couldn't bring himself to put a name to evil. He specifically named KKK, Nazis and white supremacists. But you wouldn't hear about that thanks to your echo bubble.

nl 9y ago

How can resigning in response to failure to condemn the KKK and Nazis be considered an extreme position? It seems to me that "I condemn Nazis and the KKK" is pretty much a "motherhood"[1] statement and you'd have to be pretty extreme not to make it. Even Jeff Sessions condemned it, and many of those on the left consider him a complete bogeyman. So while increased polarization might be a problem in US politics, I'm not at all sure we can see that here. Edit: And who on earth downvotes a comment like this? I don't need to complain about downvotes, but what on earth are people thinking here? Is it people who support Nazis who downvote this, or is there some subtle point here I'm missing? [1] Motherhood statements are those statements that politicians make that "everyone" agrees with; eg "I think motherhood is great"

zimpenfish 9y ago
> Is it people who support Nazis who downvote this There are certainly a lot of people on here who are very keen to point out that the Nazis aren't that bad because [bullshit reasons], yes.
- nl 9y ago
  Are there? I mean, I see lots of false equivalence arguments and (possibly fair, possibly not) criticisms of political violence from left-leaning groups. But surely no one is arguing "Nazis aren't bad" on HN?
  - viridian 9y ago
    >I see lots of false equivalence arguments and (possibly fair, possibly not) If they are fair then it's just equivalence, not false equivalence. I feel like this has become the new vogue term thrown around since Charlottesville happened, and it's seeing a lot of misuse. Most people don't even bother to explain why the equivalence is false, thus attempting to shut down the conversation in the manner of the fallacy fallacy. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_fallacy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_fallacy
    - 9y ago

pavlov 9y ago

I don't understand the claim that moderates have no voice in the United States. I'm not American, but have spent quite a lot of time in the country. From my point of view, most of the media is moderate left -- and they have a very loud voice indeed. The extreme left exists but has very little visibility compared to France, for example. (That is convenient for right-wing press like Breitbart, because it lets them paint boogeymen inside the outlines of shapeless outrage-based movements like Black Lives Matter.) American moderate right is a strange group. Polls suggest they have a lot of support, but their leaders seem to have decided not to use their voice. It's not like they're being silenced -- more like they're afraid to speak up. A few people like Senator Jeff Flake are a counterexample that shows what the American right could be, if they decided to stop pandering to an incompatible mishmash of base instincts at the fringe of their party.

humanrebar 9y ago
> A few people like Senator Jeff Flake are a counterexample that shows what the American right could be... I think you're understating how much of the American right dislikes Trump. Actual conservatives supported Cruz and Rubio (both of whom have been very consistently critical of Trump's shenanigans). Ben Sasse and Rand Paul are also very vocal. In print, National Review, The Federalist, Commentary, and similar news organizations have been against Trump since the Republican primary, not in small part to his playing footsie with racists.
- op00to 9y ago
  What's the point of "disliking" Trump if they don't get rid of him?
  - humanrebar 9y ago
    Well, Cruz didn't exactly throw in the towel and become a fan. And there's always next time.
    - hsod 9y ago

robin_reala 9y ago

There is no left in US politics, there’s just hard right and centre right. Seeing as there seems to be some disagreement to this post, let me back it up with recent US election pages from politicalcompass.org: https://www.politicalcompass.org/uselection2016 https://www.politicalcompass.org/uselection2016 https://www.politicalcompass.org/uselection2012 https://www.politicalcompass.org/uselection2012 https://www.politicalcompass.org/uselection2008 https://www.politicalcompass.org/uselection2008 https://www.politicalcompass.org/uselection2004 https://www.politicalcompass.org/uselection2004 There are a few choices for very minor candidates (Bernie Sanders notwithstanding) but very little mainstream choice that’s not wedged over to the right hand side.

calafrax 9y ago

when wealth and income disparity are at an all time high then for the ruling class paralysis is the best policy. the only voice that matters is the voice of wall street and the voice of the corporate elite. as long as politically irrelevant people on the left and right are busy yelling at each other about irrelevant issues that have no effect of wealth and income distribution then everything is going according to plan.

drzaiusapelord 9y ago

How is being against race hatred not a moderate position?

Zigurd 9y ago

There is no symmetry or balance in this. This is the fulfillment of the warnings that the alt right is a white supremacist movement, that Breitbart is their platform, and that Trump is their candidate. There is no countervailing "side" to that.