[POLITICS] If Trump is Innocent, he should prove it

[Asita]

Tstorm, it's becoming glaringly apparent that you have not actually familiarized yourself with the case you are trying to argue against. You never reference any findings in it, directly or indirectly, but instead content yourself with drawing faulty analogies or otherwise suggesting that the actual findings of the report either did not occur or are our own amateur conclusions predicated on us figuratively throwing feces at the wall in the hopes that something will stick. Truth be told, your analogy actually has me flashing back to arguing against creationists who tried to liken evolution to a tornado going through a junkyard and miraculously creating a working 747 jet.

Now on the one hand, I don't fault anyone for not having time to read through a report of this length, but on the other hand, I do expect that anyone trying to argue the case should be at least familiar enough with it to be able to accurately reference key findings within it rather than basing it entirely on their own preconceptions. If you want a cliff notes version, I again suggest this video, which clocks in at just under 11 minutes (with the first 6:50 focusing on the legal framework) and if nothing else works as a good starting point in understanding the case. And I've linked the report above for anyone who wants to either examine specific citations or give it a more thorough reading.

For goodness sake, I can once again cite the damn report here, with a citation that even appears in the aforementioned video. "Our investigation found multiple acts by the president that were capable of exerting undue influence over law enforcement investigations, carried out in one on one meetings in which the president sought to use his official powers outside the usual channels" (pg 369). Hell, I quoted a similarly damning segment in my last post. "The President's efforts to influence the election were mostly unsuccessful, but that is mostly because the persons who surrounded the President declined to carry out orders or accede to his requests". Your analogy does not even remotely resemble these findings wherein substantial evidence of criminal behavior was in fact found and recorded.

Ok, but have you quoted me any actual crimes? I can't quote what's not there, and what's not there is what you think is. You know that Trump wanted the investigation over. You know he acted in ways that could have messed up the investigation. But read your own quote carefully: "Our investigation found multiple acts by the president that were capable of exerting undue influence over law enforcement investigations, carried out in one on one meetings in which the president sought to use his official powers outside the usual channels". The actions were capable of exerting undue influence over the investigation... but they didn't. He sought to use his official powers outside the usual channels... but he didn't. Yes, duh, Donald Trump doesn't know ordinary procedure for how the Presidency works, especially in the embarrassingly chaotic early months. So he went to his staffers and advisers saying what he wanted to happen, and they said "no that's not how this works", and then the things he wanted to happen didn't.

On the one hand, I do have to acknowledge a certain skill behind your deflection. I suggest that you haven't read the report and make no reference (directly or indirectly) to its contents but instead are simply contenting yourself with handwaving what we say. You respond by asking if I quoted you anything of significance, as if I was demanding you reference my statements rather than demonstrating familiarity with/knowledge of the report's contents. In the process you indirectly imply that the only things that matter are what I've quoted to you through the suggestion that I've simply given you nothing to work with. Mind you, that rings more than a little hollow considering that I've linked the report itself twice now in addition to two summaries of its findings, in video and article form, and gave cliff notes of their summaries myself. This included - notably - the significance of the framework of the report and an infographic illustrating Mueller's findings on 14 counts of possible obstruction (as quoted again by Lil devils x on page 8 of this thread). In addition, I have directly quoted appreciable chunks of it several times now, to say nothing of weighing in myself on the significance of those quotes, and directly explaining to you why I disagree with your perspective, including - but not limited to - repeatedly pointing out that the fact that the attempt was made is more important than whether or not it was successful. And then you simply dismiss the report as containing nothing worth acknowledging outside of an attempt to try and twist a quote that I myself supplied.

On the other hand, I'm familiar enough with such deflections to despise them. I make it a point to assume good faith in debates, but you are making that quite difficult.

For bonus points, you once again overplayed your hand in your attempt to turn the quote around, because the context is not what you suggest, which you would know if you had done as I suggested and actually familiarized yourself with the text. To quote:

Our investigation found multiple acts by the President that were capable of exetting undue influence over law enforcement investigations, including the Russian-interference and obstruction investigations. The incidents were often carried out through one-on-one meetings in which the President sought to use his official power outside of usual channels. These actions ranged from efforts to remove the Special Counsel and to reverse the effect of the Attorney General 's recusal; to the attempted use of official power to limit the scope of the investigation; to direct and indirect contacts with witnesses with the potential to influence their testimony. Viewing the acts collectively can help to illuminate their significance. For example, the President's direction to McGahn to have the Special Counsel removed was followed almost immediately by his direction to Lewandowski to tell the Attorney General to limit the scope of the Russia investigation to prospective election-interference only-a temporal connection that suggests that both acts were taken with a related purpose with respect to the investigation.


The President' s efforts to influence the investigation were mostly unsuccessful, but that is largely because the persons who surrounded the President declined to carry out orders or accede to his requests. Corney did not end the investigation of Flynn, which ultimately resulted in Flynn's prosecution and conviction for lying to the FBI. McGahn did not tell the Acting Attorney General that the Special Counsel must be removed, but was instead prepared to resign over the President's order. Lewandowski and Dearborn did not deliver the President's message to Sessions that he should confine the Russia investigation to future election meddling only. And McGahn refused to recede from his recollections about events surrounding the President's direction to have the Special Counsel removed, despite the President's multiple demands that he do so. Consistent with that pattern, the evidence we obtained would not support potential obstruction charges against the President's aides and associates beyond those already filed.

This is what I meant when I said it was "glaringly apparent that you have not actually familiarized yourself with the case". You thought you had something that proved your point in a statement that referenced capacity, under the assumption that it was being used in the sense of "he had but didn't employ the capacity", when in fact the surrounding context makes it clear that the acts in question actually occurred but were unsuccessful because his subordinates were opposed to and did not follow through on them. And once again, Obstruction of justice entails any attempt to interfere with an official investigation. That the report characterizes this as failed attempts is itself an acknowledgement that the attempts were made in the first place, and thus putting Trump dead to rights on the count of obstruction.

So again, tstorm, I ask that you either familiarize yourself with the case, or stop wasting both of our times by arguing a subject you are apparently not willing to do your homework on. I apologize for the tone, but as I said before, my patience is growing thin.

 

[Saelune]

Another Synagogue got shot up. But hey 'No Nazis anymore' right?

 

[Dirty Hipsters]

Another Synagogue got shot up. But hey 'No Nazis anymore' right?

The Nazis really don't have a monopoly on hating Jews. Basically every culture that the Jews have ever encountered throughout their history has ended up hating and/or persecuting them.

 

[Agema]

The situation is bad, but it's not bad in the way a lot of people think it is bad, it's not the racism or the white supremacy - it's the corruption. It's not about creating this nationalistic state, it's about politicians trying to get rich. We need to stop jumping at Nazi boogeymen and focus on slaying the genuine late-stage Capitalists and Megacorps.

I think the key issue is that the far right is making hay off the frustrations with late-stage capitalism, promising some sort of succour from it. If there's a marketplace for ideas to reform late stage capitalism, the far right is doing disturbingly well at advertising ang hawking its wares: it is partly a battle against the far right to make sure they don't decide what the future is. It's also a fight against those who would use far right rhetoric and quasi-far right policy to defend the status quo: people who talk noisily about border walls and immigrants as a front for mass deregulation and cuts to taxation and public services.

It's true that it seems social mobility has eroded over the years. I do not think it is a sign of things to come, or something that had always been - social-mobility has improved immensely, if you view the reality through the eyes of women a hundred years ago, or men two hundred years ago. I believe that a series of bad decisions in recent decades had consolidated much wealth under the protection racket of the state... An example to that would be the world reaction to the 2008 financial drop, which was caused by bankers inventing a new product and inflating it into such insane proportions that it was too late for the bubble to bust without massive block-back. The dot-com bubble was very similar... These things happen, as did the great depression in the 1920s, however it is the incessant intervention of the state in business that creates inequality to begin with... monopolies from the beginning were a way for the crown to regulate who can make business, and thus profit...

I don't agree. The history of monopoly in mercantilist monarchies isn't really relevant - it's a completely different set up. But we have plentiful evidence to show us already that free markets are liable to end in monopoly and near-monopoly. Benefits of consolidation tends to promote few powerful actors, and powerful market actors then simply buy out smaller innovators. There's an argument to scrap intellectual property, except then that innovators may not be able to turn a profit out of their creations at all.

The "capture" of state by powerful actors is a persistent problem - but then a notionally simple solution is recapture of the state by the masses.

My concern is often more related to rent: the ability of the wealthy to extract money for no real effort or skill. Imagine entrepreneurial restauranteurs. Sure, they can make a great success of their eatery... and the minute their landlord notices the profit will be snaffled up in rent increases. The poor sink their money into the pockets of the rich, where the same costs from the wealthy buys assets.

The situation has improved much, but the pendulum swung again - see how the information-age revolution allowed regular people access to a massive market, and gave them the opportunity to innovate and create - but nowadays the market is dominated by giants that consume or stomp on opposition. Those that could not adapt to the changing tides of technological innovation were left behind - many companies make the wrong investment, and fail to predict the future. Those same giants of today could also fail in the future. You're correct that connections between politicians and the wealthy only make the poor even poorer. It's a tragedy, one which is not ought to be a permanent one. I could tell you how things improved from, lets say, the Victorian era, or the middle of the 20th century, but that's not interesting to you... You think about your own generation, as I do myself.

...

We see it from our point of view, but it changes back and forth, and in my eyes, slowly towards equality of opportunity.

I am interested in how things improved from the Victorian era to the 1970s. I'm interested in how so much was done to so much general societal benefit, because it means it can be done, rather than the stagnation and even erosion we've seen since. But I don't believe there is any end point we're gradually moving towards, some Whiggish "1066 and all that" inescapable trajectory of improvement. There's no reason we can't decisively regress from here to some sort of neo-feudalism. Our political life is all non-stop, hard work towards goals of societal improvement, with no conceits and no complacency. And I think just currently the forces of egalitarianism are losing, have been losing for decades.

I agree that any corporate giant can fall, but isn't it really just a bit "the king is dead, long live the king"? It doesn't matter how many aristos died in the War of the Roses, it ended with the country still run by a handful of powerful aristos. Things change by killing the institution of aristocracy, not individual aristocrats.

 

[Saelune]

Another Synagogue got shot up. But hey 'No Nazis anymore' right?

The Nazis really don't have a monopoly on hating Jews. Basically every culture that the Jews have ever encountered throughout their history has ended up hating and/or persecuting them.

Is that supposed to make it ok? Why are Synagogues in the US suddenly being shot up? We have a President who says Nazi shit, people who support him who say Nazi shit, Nazis marching saying 'Jews will not replace us' and Synagogues being shot up.

People want to downplay the Nazis (gee, wonder why) yet things keep happening the same as Nazi fucking Germany.

Too many people care more about arguing the semantics of 'Nazi' rather than arguing how we can stop people who act like fucking Nazis from acting like fucking Nazis.

But hey, lets ***** about punching people who like killing Jews while Jews are being murdered in their own places of worship. But hey, atleast the killers 'arent actually Nazis' right?

 

[Thaluikhain]

Another Synagogue got shot up. But hey 'No Nazis anymore' right?

The Nazis really don't have a monopoly on hating Jews. Basically every culture that the Jews have ever encountered throughout their history has ended up hating and/or persecuting them.

While, yes, that is true, but if the Nazis weren't so powerful in the US, and running with the rather overt approval of the PotUS and his ilk, we'd see much less antisemitism.

 

[Dirty Hipsters]

Another Synagogue got shot up. But hey 'No Nazis anymore' right?

The Nazis really don't have a monopoly on hating Jews. Basically every culture that the Jews have ever encountered throughout their history has ended up hating and/or persecuting them.

Is that supposed to make it ok? Why are Synagogues in the US suddenly being shot up? We have a President who says Nazi shit, people who support him who say Nazi shit, Nazis marching saying 'Jews will not replace us' and Synagogues being shot up.

People want to downplay the Nazis (gee, wonder why) yet things keep happening the same as Nazi fucking Germany.

Too many people care more about arguing the semantics of 'Nazi' rather than arguing how we can stop people who act like fucking Nazis from acting like fucking Nazis.

But hey, lets ***** about punching people who like killing Jews while Jews are being murdered in their own places of worship. But hey, atleast the killers 'arent actually Nazis' right?

We still don't know why the shooter did it. So far it looks like he was inspired by the Christchurch shooting, which wasn't done by a Nazi either, it was done by a shitbag who just wants to be infamous. I'm actually way more worried by the rise of crazy conspiracy theorists who believe in shit like Pizzagate and Qanon than I am about Nazis and they tend to have just as much of a bone to pick with the Jewish people, which is why I'm waiting to see if this guy was actually a Nazi/white supremacist or if he was some dickbag who spent too much time on 4chan and legitimately believes in lizard people.

 

[Agema]

...which is why I'm waiting to see if this guy was actually a Nazi/white supremacist or if he was some dickbag who spent too much time on 4chan and legitimately believes in lizard people.

Eh? What on earth makes you think they're different?

Conspiracy theories about Jews - controlling the world through banking, undermining Germany's war efforts in WWI, promoting Communism, etc. - were fundamental beliefs of Nazis, all the way to Hitler himself.

 

[bluegate]

Another shooting eh?

Reading some of the things from the suspect's "manifesto", that guy was properly off of his rocker, wasn't he?

 

[Leg End]

People want to downplay the Nazis (gee, wonder why) yet things keep happening the same as Nazi fucking Germany.

When the Reichstag gets set on fire, I'll consider believing that.

which is why I'm waiting to see if this guy was actually a Nazi/white supremacist or if he was some dickbag who spent too much time on 4chan and legitimately believes in lizard people.

8chan, but yeah. His manifesto is floating around if you want to take a look at it, but it's even more warped than the aussie's from what little I've read. 'Warped' is not my preferred term, but you know, forum rules.

Eh? What on earth makes you think they're different?

Because /pol/ is not a hivemind and it's possible to believe in Lizard People/Jews being Lizard People but not be a Nazi?

Conspiracy theories about Jews - controlling the world through banking, undermining Germany's war efforts in WWI, promoting Communism, etc. - were fundamental beliefs of Nazis, all the way to Hitler himself.

Yeah, but there's a hell of a lot more to Nazism than just hating Jews. You can have an actual Nazi talk with someone who also doesn't like/hates Jews, but the latter guy thinks Fascism is stupid and tells the former to suck a dick. You can also have someone that is a Fascist but doesn't actually have a particular dislike for Jews. They all get bundled together, but they're not all the same thing. As pointed out above, a shitload of places and people have basically told Jews to GTFO. Hell, depending who you ask, that's not even a complete list.

TL;DR

Another shooting eh?

Reading some of the things from the suspect's "manifesto", that guy was properly off of his rocker, wasn't he?

Absolutely.

 

[Saelune]

Bigotry is not sane. It is irrational, it is immoral, it is wrong.

Hitler was insane, Trump is insane, and yes, these White Supremacist, Nazi, terrorist pieces of garbage are insane.

And defending Nazis is bad.

 

[Marik2]

Do you really think people would turn down the offer of "everybody has great healthcare"?

I don't know about Saelune, but I do, yes. The idea that certain people, or types of people shouldn't get the same as everyone else, for one reason or another, is nothing new.

I certainly do and I actually work in the field. The reality is we actually have part of the US population who actually thinks that the poor should do without or be forced to use charity care because they see themselves as "more deserving". I have heard people actually say " I don't want my taxes paying for it, they can use ST. Judes." Yes they ignorantly suggest people use a charity that they do not even understand what they do. Of course, what should I expect though from someone who thinks like that in the first place?

I have had to listen to people complain that they had to wait longer to see the doctor for walk in visits now since we have more patients at the clinic after Obamacare. These patients previously often did not have access to Doctors outside of waiting for it to get really bad and end up in the ER instead. Some of the people here are seriously so entitled they would rather that other people's children do without access to healthcare so that they do not have to wait an extra 10 minutes on a same day appointment. These people are worried about having to share a waiting area with poor people and have to interact with them at their Physicians offices where they expect to only have to see people who can afford to be there. We have actually have had people ask about where they can find physicians that do not accept Obamacare patients so they do not have to be burdened with them existing in the same space. but as I have mentioned before, I live in a wealthy area in Texas and have had to deal with these sorts for a long time now, so not all that surprising to me at this point. This mindset being popular in this area is the primary reason why Texas has so little in benefits, and why the state has so many uninsured.

EDIT: It is also complete and utter BS that the US cannot afford to provide great universal healthcare. They just need to take a crap ton of hands out of the cookie jar. All of the vultures driving up the costs to make a profit off of desperate people are the primary problem that has to be addressed.

We not only need to address Medication costs, but medical supply and equipment, administrative fees, absurd Physician fees, investor profits and operations costs.

What city in Texas are you from? I'm from San Antonio.

 

[Marik2]

Another shooting eh?

Reading some of the things from the suspect's "manifesto", that guy was properly off of his rocker, wasn't he?

He was a walking shitpost with guns.

 

[Lil devils x_v1legacy]

Do you really think people would turn down the offer of "everybody has great healthcare"?

I don't know about Saelune, but I do, yes. The idea that certain people, or types of people shouldn't get the same as everyone else, for one reason or another, is nothing new.

I certainly do and I actually work in the field. The reality is we actually have part of the US population who actually thinks that the poor should do without or be forced to use charity care because they see themselves as "more deserving". I have heard people actually say " I don't want my taxes paying for it, they can use ST. Judes." Yes they ignorantly suggest people use a charity that they do not even understand what they do. Of course, what should I expect though from someone who thinks like that in the first place?

I have had to listen to people complain that they had to wait longer to see the doctor for walk in visits now since we have more patients at the clinic after Obamacare. These patients previously often did not have access to Doctors outside of waiting for it to get really bad and end up in the ER instead. Some of the people here are seriously so entitled they would rather that other people's children do without access to healthcare so that they do not have to wait an extra 10 minutes on a same day appointment. These people are worried about having to share a waiting area with poor people and have to interact with them at their Physicians offices where they expect to only have to see people who can afford to be there. We have actually have had people ask about where they can find physicians that do not accept Obamacare patients so they do not have to be burdened with them existing in the same space. but as I have mentioned before, I live in a wealthy area in Texas and have had to deal with these sorts for a long time now, so not all that surprising to me at this point. This mindset being popular in this area is the primary reason why Texas has so little in benefits, and why the state has so many uninsured.

EDIT: It is also complete and utter BS that the US cannot afford to provide great universal healthcare. They just need to take a crap ton of hands out of the cookie jar. All of the vultures driving up the costs to make a profit off of desperate people are the primary problem that has to be addressed.

We not only need to address Medication costs, but medical supply and equipment, administrative fees, absurd Physician fees, investor profits and operations costs.

What city in Texas are you from? I'm from San Antonio.

I live in Heath, Texas Rockwall County( DFW Metroplex) I work in Dallas county though. Heath is primarily just spread out mansions, ranches and farms for the most part, not many businesses in Heath itself.

Pretty much a little rich snobby nook in DFW.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heath,_Texas
https://www.dianelipps.com/homes-for-sale-in-heath-tx-real-estate

San Antonio is fun! I have been there a few times, we pretty much partied all night there.
That is actually where I bought my "Diablo flame light" because I have this thing for freaky weird lights.
HA! I found a video of one in action online:

Yes, I had to buy one of these while in San Anton because they had one above the bar while we were bar hopping and I asked the owner what it was called and where I could get one. I seem to collect freaky lights wherever I go. XD

 

[Saelune]

Trump is guilty and he keeps proving it. He is now suing banks to shut them up.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/29/us/politics/trump-lawsuit-deutsche-bank.html

Innocent Until Proven Guilty? How about Innocent until you do everything guilty people do to hide your guilt?

 

[Neurotic Void Melody]

no human responsible for any racist/discriminatory mass murder attempts gets to veil their crap as 'just memes bruh.' no one. the lead singer of lost prophets didn't get people saying "oh, well maybe he ain't a pedo after all" after he was recorded saying to a mate "it was for the lolz." people still saw through that shit and no fucker defended it. weird how it's different when it involves racial/religious discrimination that people suddenly think a distinction must be necessary as if it makes a single fucking bit of difference to anyone but actual neo nazis. no right has been earned to water actions down to 'jokes' once you've engaged in discriminatory violence, the effect is exactly the same regardless

Trump is guilty and he keeps proving it. He is now suing banks to shut them up.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/29/us/politics/trump-lawsuit-deutsche-bank.html

Innocent Until Proven Guilty? How about Innocent until you do everything guilty people do to hide your guilt?

and he will keep doing this. and he will keep being defended. because a childish billionaire **** is somehow worth protecting from any hint of ordinary justice the rest of us have to go through, while the poor and different are demonised with their trite justification being a mass projection of conservative prejudices onto some bullshit they call 'god' to give their ignorance more weight than it ever deserves. evangelism is a creeping evil amongst America, or at least the claim to evangelism, as I'm highly dubious those benefiting the most from it actually believe in anything but their own self-gratification

 

[Here Comes Tomorrow]

Trump is guilty and he keeps proving it. He is now suing banks to shut them up.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/29/us/politics/trump-lawsuit-deutsche-bank.html

Innocent Until Proven Guilty? How about Innocent until you do everything guilty people do to hide your guilt?

I mean if I had to say which was more harmful to society between bankers and Trump...I'm going to side with the one that'll be gone in 1-5 years.

 

[Saelune]

Trump is guilty and he keeps proving it. He is now suing banks to shut them up.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/29/us/politics/trump-lawsuit-deutsche-bank.html

Innocent Until Proven Guilty? How about Innocent until you do everything guilty people do to hide your guilt?

I mean if I had to say which was more harmful to society between bankers and Trump...I'm going to side with the one that'll be gone in 1-5 years.

Trump's damage will be felt in the US probably for the rest of the US's existence. History is weird like that.

The Republican Party has sold what remained of their soul, becoming the party of hypocrisy and fascism, the rapist buffoon Kavanaugh will be on the Supreme Court till he dies, which took the scumbag Scalia over 30 years. Yeah, Reagan has been screwing us just with one man for 30 years!

Trump isn't going to just 'go away', regardless of what happens to the so-called man.

 

[Saelune]

[tweet t=https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/263348204068810752]

 

[tstorm823]

This is what I meant when I said it was "glaringly apparent that you have not actually familiarized yourself with the case". You thought you had something that proved your point in a statement that referenced capacity, under the assumption that it was being used in the sense of "he had but didn't employ the capacity", when in fact the surrounding context makes it clear that the acts in question actually occurred but were unsuccessful because his subordinates were opposed to and did not follow through on them. And once again, Obstruction of justice entails any attempt to interfere with an official investigation. That the report characterizes this as failed attempts is itself an acknowledgement that the attempts were made in the first place, and thus putting Trump dead to rights on the count of obstruction.

So again, tstorm, I ask that you either familiarize yourself with the case, or stop wasting both of our times by arguing a subject you are apparently not willing to do your homework on. I apologize for the tone, but as I said before, my patience is growing thin.

Your patience can grow as thin as it wants, you're still not understanding. The investigation was not obstructed. You have no evidence that the president's actions obstructed Justice. You have no evidence that he intended to obstruct Justice. If people around him had cooperated with his wishes, it still likely wouldn't be obstruction of justice.

Take for example the recusal of Jeff Sessions. Trump did not want him recused. Legally, it would have been wrong for him not to recuse himself. He did not deliver Trump's desires for this reason. Is Trump in the wrong here? Yes. Now imagine a world where Jeff Sessions didn't recuse himself. Does that make the investigation obstructed? Uh, no. No it doesn't. Say they did fire Mueller, does that make the investigation dead? Still no. If people had delivered Donald Trump his every wish (there would be some procedural mistakes absolutely) would that have prevented the investigation into Russia interference and possible collusion from collecting the same evidence and reaching the same outcome? Probably not. Maybe, but probably not.

So what you know is that Trump wanted to (but didn't) do things that could have (but probably wouldn't) obstruct an ongoing investigation, and your own assumption that he did those things to try and stop said investigation despite his very public cooperation with said investigation. What am I missing here?

We still don't know why the shooter did it. So far it looks like he was inspired by the Christchurch shooting, which wasn't done by a Nazi either, it was done by a shitbag who just wants to be infamous. I'm actually way more worried by the rise of crazy conspiracy theorists who believe in shit like Pizzagate and Qanon than I am about Nazis and they tend to have just as much of a bone to pick with the Jewish people, which is why I'm waiting to see if this guy was actually a Nazi/white supremacist or if he was some dickbag who spent too much time on 4chan and legitimately believes in lizard people.

I don't think that's the question. I don't see a big difference between someone who thinks they're fighting for the white race or thinks they're fighting against lizard people.

I think the question is whether this person believes in anything, or whether they're just a nihilist who thinks nothing matters who's just trying to make a scene because they think it's better than living what a normal person would consider a meaningful life. I don't actually know if this person had any more bigotry against Jews than a school shooter has bigotry against school children (and frankly I'm not going to read a "manifesto" to try and find out).