I don't think it's helpful to think in terms of left and right. That presumes that each side is roughly a mirror analogue of the other.
Think in terms of forward and backward. Will your ideas and political leanings push society forward? Will you be making the world better than you found it? Or are you trying to resist change, fighting against progress because the status quo, or the recent past, benefits you in some way?
Yes, but will they be able to capture the true narrative complexity of asking a desk toy to provide randomized platitudes and admonisitions? How can they please the built-in hardcore fans without alienating the newcomers who don't have an encyclopedic understanding of the extensive lore? Will they tackle some of the more problematic canon events that have aged poorly in a more enlightened society? Or will they gloss over those moments and modernize the deep mythology on which the intellectual property is based and risk abandoning the edge that made it popular in the first place?
Concentrate and ask again
Fuck.
Bull, and I cannot emphasize this enough, shit. Everyone is not a little bit bigoted. That's something bigots tell themselves when rationalizing their own prejudices. You should probably take a hard look in the mirror and ask yourself if you're the problem.
"Progressive" describes a position, not a person. A person can be many things. A person can hold contradictory viewpoints, and fully believe two incompatible thoughts at the same time. It's tragically naive to assume that people are rational or consistent.
Can a person think they are progressive and also be a bigot? Of course a person can. Everybody is the hero in their own story.
There are thick, uncrossable lines, and there are a lot of people who don't mind crossing them. You cannot compromise with a bigot. You cannot find common ground with a person who would subjugate you, or someone who sees you as less than human.
We can have disagreements about many political issues, but when you are standing next to pedophiles, rapists, fascists, and bigots, you shouldn't be surprised to be called a Nazi.
So the question becomes, what is the test of "purity"?
I mean, it's still an abuse of power and a violation of the constitution, even if the victim is a piece of shit.
I'm legitimately unconvinced that they got the right guy. There are issues with all of the evidence against him, and I fully believe that the federal government would, in the absence of an actual suspect, frame the first convenient loner. Like there's probably a list of "questionable" individuals in a file at the FBI that they can pull up when they need a scapegoat. "How about this Luigi guy? He's in the general vicinity, and he doesn't have an alibi. Grab the gun and one of those manifestos from the pile, we gotta go pick him up."
It's also possible he's guilty, but the prosecution still has to follow the rule of law. If he cannot get a fair trial, he must go free. That's the only way we can be certain that the government won't throw us in prison without a fair trial.
This is the guy in charge of medical advice for the United States. Lacking even basic scientific knowledge.
Why would his murderers inspect the crime scene?
Yet another reason to use alternatives to Microsoft.
Yeah, this is a weird way to frame this story. Did he also "lose" at Jeopardy and the NLDS? Just because he said he wanted to win doesn't mean he was either nominated or considered.
I fully believe that this is an attempt to proactively delegitimize any attempts to prosecute former Trump officials for their actual crimes. You can just hear the dipshit chorus of "You protested when we prosecuted Comey and James, and now you're trying to do the exact same thing to us!"