@CowboyJD regarding paragraph one, i did not state or imply that there aren't limitless positions of nuance along the spectrum of liberty and socialism. i simply stated that the traditionally assumed binary of left right is outmoded. in fact I am quite opposed to the inflexible tyranny of political labels.
however I'm confused. you at first tell me that my claim that politics are no longer the traditional binary are specious, inferring that while an attractive theory, I'm wrong. then you tell me there are tons of positions to take between my definitions. which position are you arguing?
regarding paragraph 2, i didn't intend to impugn your professional experience. im suggesting that philosophically you are so committed to being non binary that you've developed a blind spot by reverse engineering the collusion question to fit that position rather than simply recognizing the most likely explanation based on the evidence to coverage/talking point ratio is that it's an implausible absurdity which is wasting our time and insulting our intelligence. it seems like a reasonable conclusion absent a reason to simply want the investigation to be legit and professional - which may be some unintentional professional bias on your part.
maybe not. just an opinion
Actually what I told you is that the traditional assumed binary of left right has been replaced by Trump supporters with the equally binary Trump populism v the Uniparty (establishment). Thus, you claim that is was no longer binary on the whole was specious because the traditional right/left binary had been replaced with an equally binary Trump populism/Uniparty.
Then the two examples you stated it is becoming "more and more about" we're both directly binary. I'm not a socialist, but I do believe in the social contract that is our Constitution the government has a role and there is a reasonable defensible level of regulation of citizen conduct. I'm not a nationalist, but I also don't worship at the Church of Cultural Diversity (your term).
I don't define myself as "center vs left and right". I focus on the issue at hand and evaluate it using my reason, logic, and personal to come to a conclusion and opinion. I don't care where that conclusion and opinion actually ends up falling on the left/right or Trump populism/Uniparty scale or whatever scale you want to use.
I absolutely disagree that "the most likely explanation based on the evidence to coverage/talking point ratio is that it's an implausible absurdity which is wasting our time and insulting our intelligence". Particularly when Mueller was appointed by a Trump appointee.
I find the totality of the connections between Trump election people administration members (Manafort, Flynn, Page) suspicious. I find the meetings between such officials and Russian during the election suspicious. I find Trump Jr., Manafort, and Kushner meeting with people after an e-mail saying Russian government officials have information about Hillary that will help Trump suspicious. I find Trump asking for a recommendation from Sessions and the Deputy AG on whether he should fire Comey, then using that as justification, and then turning around and saying he was going to fire him anyway because of Russia suspicious. I don't have to reverse engineer anything or worry about where that puts me on any left/right or Trump/Uniparty spectrum to do so.
People advocating continued/new investigations of Hillary, Wasserstein, Seth Rich in connection with the DNC leaks have less to base their suspicions on than what I find suspicious about Trump/Russia (IMO)....yet in one situation they want investigations started and one they advocated that it's all manufactured nonsense that never justified an investigation.
My thought process then goes to if I find it suspicious, what is the next logical reasonable conclusion/step? My opinion is the next reasonable step is an investigation. Is there a possible completely innocent explanation for all that behavior I find suspicious? Maybe...maybe even probably. That doesn't mean an investigation to explore the truth of those claims should be jettisoned. That is the most likely explanation for "Russia". Trump and his people have done some inherent suspicious things re: Russia. That's why an investigation is warranted, appropriate, and needed. Then, knowing what I know about large scale criminal corruption investigations based upon my experience and knowledge of history regarding similar investigations, I know that nine months (or a little over two in the case of Mueller) isn't really that long at all.
My position on Russia/Trump has nothing to do with a desire to position myself anywhere on a political spectrum.
