> All of which makes the attempt by the left to insist that he wasn't left wing all the more the stranger.
I don’t understand why this is so one sided in your opinion…? Both major parties and their base are saying “he wasn’t one of ours.” I feel like I’m missing something here.
>Both major parties and their base are saying “he wasn’t one of ours.” I feel like I’m missing something here.
Because even though there's no slam dunk evidence that he's left/right wing (eg. some manifesto saying "yep, I'm left wing!", it's far more likely that he was left wing rather than right wing, and therefore the left's attempt to distance themselves from the shooter is weaker and worth calling out more. If the circumstances were reversed (eg. this guy: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attack_on_Paul_Pelosi#Social_m...), and both the left and the right tried to distance themselves from the attacker, I'd call out the right more, even if there's vague tidbits implying he was left.
I don’t understand why this is so one sided in your opinion…? Both major parties and their base are saying “he wasn’t one of ours.” I feel like I’m missing something here.