My straightforward answer to your original question is, yes to both. This is new and it is a surprise, just as it would be if evidence surfaced that Clinton raped girls on Epstein's island. The fact that something is suspected doesn't negate that.
I am a straight forward person, and I generally have a philisophical approach to politics. While you can label me whatever you want, I don't really belong to any one political group. My opinions are based almost entirely on my own observations. While I admit I don't do enough research, I think my observations of people's behavior are more than enough to tell if I trust something. Regardless of words said, no good built on deciet will ever last.
I think people's world view is largely defined by two things. Evidence, and speculation. I lean more into speculation, because I see a lot of moving parts in society. Just like you cannot understand a person's history with a single court case. You cannot understand politics with a single incident. I believe a lot of truth is stuck in speculation due to corruption. Things happen to fast, to wait for evidence.
I'm sorry, you're right I was rude in my follow up to you. From my perspective, I was trying to reach out and answer your question through analogy, and it is frustrating to try to bridge the divide only to have it rejected. I think you do act in good faith and I can appreciate that, but I truly don't understand your perspective, and to be honest view it as ignorant and a threat to our society.
If you want to use analogies, don't use negative stereotypes. Otherwise you come off like Justin Trudeau in his trips to foreign countries. Yes, bridging the divide is difficult now because people are polarized and forget everyone is human, and intelligent. In reality, the divide isn't even real in the sense of empathy and understanding. Most people actually want the same things. It is just the method in which to do so that becomes the problem. In that case, I feel it is defined by idealism vs realism. The Left having more faith in the goodness of people, and the Right having faith on what has worked in the past. In my opinion, the Right has less room for error as well as change, because human behavior is somewhat predictable and follow patterns. History, also supports traditionalism as the reason societies persist for longer periods of time. When liberalism is on the rise, it usually signified the fall of a society. I've resigned myself to believing that this will forever be the case. While I am not a traditionalist, I do believe humans follow a specific behavioral pattern in society. I believe it is every person's duty to resist instinct and become non-materialistic. As doing so is what seperated us from the animals to begin with. It is why society collapses with the embrace of hedonism and egotism.
I acknowledge I could be wrong in my assessment of you, and I realize how even stating what I feel on the inside can be perceived as arrogant or rude or whatever. But I can't spontaneously change how I feel. I do try to engage with you sometimes to understand your perspective. And as I've said before, when I reached out to you about weight loss I was genuinely trying to get to know you better so I could change this distorted and negative view I hold of you. I don't like holding negative opinions of people.
Politics is indeed a terrible place to get to know someone, as I think I said before. I am also hard to get to know because I am rather avoidant and fleeting. I am also bad at explaining and communicating. Because I only learned how to do so in the last 8 years. So part of this is on me. You can fairly say I am socially inept. One day I'll master the art of conversation, and kick your proverbial argument in the butt. That is if 2020 really isn't the apocalypse though.
George Carlin quipped that inside every cynical person is a disappointed idealist, and I can really relate to that. I want there to be understanding between us--both you and me personally, and the left and the right more generally. What we're all going through right now sucks, and we just can seem to understand each other. I thought my analogy would help you understand my perspective, and it was disappointing that it didn't. In part it felt like a failure on my part, as well.
I think that quote is pretty accurate to be honest. I also want people to understand each other more. The dismissal with buzzwords is a real problem I feel, on both sides. People often tout them, without explaining why. Or redefining words to suit their needs. That is why I think conversations without links, and arguing with your own words is important.
Sorry for taking so long and if I missed anything, I am at work.