Tex-s wrote:
Thanks for the civil reply. What I was trying to say about the left's identity politics these days is that many groups of people are silenced before expressing opinions owing only to some form of identity they possess. The Koch's were my attempt to show old, rich, white conservative, religious men. Those people would be booed off a stage or out of a restaurant if they attempted to offer an opinion of the wine selection.
And I fail to see where I denied Trump is a manipulator. My tone was supposed to illuminate the same behavior from the left, certainly not exclusive behavior from the left. I will say, though, for the most part, the (non-Trump) voices on the right are typically ready to debate issues and policy far more readily than most on the left. I just sat through a compilation (radio) of 5 or 6 liberal pundits arguing the use of the word 'mob' to describe screaming protesters being evicted from the Kavenaugh hearings or pounding on the Supreme Court doors. This was their focus rather than the actual over-the-top, illogical, counter-productive behavior. Don't call them a mob...... A mob is what we had in Charlotsville..... They are just angry.... All deflections of FACTS that are NOT to be debated.
I see Trump as a net negative for the nation at this point. If he could only have removed himself from the mockery, I'd swing to a positive rating. Trump is simply not the problem in our nation. He is the result of the problem of a wholly inactive, passive, conciliatory, unmotivated GOP leadership in the Congress that wasted four years of 'power' to enact meaningful course corrections in military, economic, immigration, law enforcement, and many other misguided Obama-era policies. Those who felt abandoned by their own party, and who knew the Democrats were simply not representing their views, voted for a fighter, the man who refused to be like the GOP of 2012-2016. I don't LIKE Trump, but I 100% believe that his agenda (to which he has kept more promises than any President in my lifetime) is based on his honest evaluation of what serves the nation. And note, I said agenda, not affect, not methodology, not his rallies, and not his tweets.
At this point I hope Trump is so controversial that both parties end up wanting change that weakens both the President and the SCOTUS, diminishing their ability to divide a nation. Not only is that a logical idea, it goes back to the actual words in the Constitution, not interpreted meanings of the 'implications' of those words or 'penumbras' of enunciated powers or rights..... My 2 cents.
Thanks for the civil reply. What I was trying to ... (
show quote)
I love your last paragraph, it is a hope that I’ve had. The extremists will energize the moderates. The tribalism we are now experiencing ill hopefully cause reasonable people to collaborate and put country first.
Your 2 cents are of far greater value than you think.