"“There is an enormous distinction between liberal and left,” he said. "Liberals and conservatives have far more in common than either have with the left. The left is a purely destructive force.
“Whether it’s America or Europe or anywhere else. Liberals and conservatives may differ but they have similar values,” Prager continued."
On ‘liberal’ critiques of whether the president is “unqualified,” “leftist” views are irrelevant to me.
So, the Left calls Melania a c***, thinks Barron should be in prison and raped, Dt should be hanged, beheaded, eviscerated, assassinated, is a Nazi, is a Russian spy and Putin puppet - like Tulsi Gabbard, I guess (can Hillary get any more crazy?) - hates Mexicans, hates gays, hates Muslims, hates the environment, hates justice, is greedy, lies even more than the Left, and I could go on and on but noone likes long lists, I’ve learned.
My god, he’s worse than Satan.
My point - people think Trump is MEAN? compared to whom? And the Left is not called out by any of you?? The silence of so-called moderates is deafening.
No, I often call out the Left, and that side (and we “moderates”) are usually blasted on these pages.
Indeed, you focus on awful extremes of the so-called left (as well as exalting your favorite politician),
but present a deafening silence about your own side’s weaknesses or extremes.
Thus you imply that you present a more balanced critique of both sides of views on the president than
we who differ do. All I see is a double standard wherein it’s fine for you not to praise the other side,
but you demand over and over again that those who challenge your perceptions reinforce
your own adoring emphases or condemnations. That dismisses how dialogue generally works.
Some here “might” believe, that Curly is the “other side”. And you have to follow, the Moe method of “dialogue”. 
Dialogue generally works? Sure. But not always, and it is not appropriate in all situations. The fight for the soul of the country has been dragged into the sewers by the Left (not liberals) and cannot be answered by dialogue. If you play this game by the rules of dialogue, but your opponent uses every dirty trick available, you will lose. We can’t be naive about this.
And if we’ve learned anything from the ‘hermeneutic of suspicion’, it’s that the other guy, suave, with gravitas and an open smile and manner - is driven by a will to power just as real as one’s own.
People on this forum want to forcibly take money to fulfill their purposes. That is a ‘will to power’ as real as any; no dialogue, just take. But like all bad decisions, the end does not justify the means.
I don’t have a side, nor a favorite politician. Sorry, you’ll have to do better than that.
I do favor what a politician does well in the interest of the country; and since extremes is all we hear on most of the media, the extremes have to be called out. Think of the difference you and others could make by calling out the obvious extremes on your side - publicly, vocally - that might help open up dialogue. Might lead back to journalism.
Yes, my sadness is that the forum has become the place considered “inappropriate” for dialogue, and amid political passions keeps reverting to personal ad hominem characterizations of members, instead of focusing on the substance of policy differences. I fear no one gains any light from that.
There was certainly NO dialogue from you or others when I attempted to point out the skewed caricature of Trump being bandied about here, by my ‘listing’ his accomplishments.
No dialogue at all, except to tell me that trying to change the focus would forever disappoint me.
It was at that point that I realized dialogue would be useless; no change of focus was possible nor desired on this part of the forum.
So talking to me about dialogue leaves kind of a sour taste.
At least on this thread.
Here’s an example, of how they did dialogue - in the Middle Ages! Timing is everything!
Bob: I face a double standard where it’s fine for you to keep insisting those who differ just reinforce your side’s views of things, but you equally seldom affirm my side or views.
Dave repeats: “I have no side, but think of the difference you could make calling out Your side!”
And “I realize dialogue would be useless… talking to me about dialogue leaves a sour taste.”
That states my perception well.
The thing is, we are not voting on Orange Man Bad vs thoughtful dems such as yourself.
Thoughtful dems such as yourself are not running for office and let’s face it - you would not stand a chance on the debate stage with those fools - meaning, they are now in charge of your party and would not even let you up on the stage.
So it makes the election choice very easy for me. If by some chance the Left can lie their way into impeachment, or drum up more slander like they tried with Kavanaugh and actually convince some other politicians to follow in their wake, then perhaps they can finish their coup. We shall see.
For the nonce:
“Donald Trump cannot restore us morally or reverse our cultural decline. He is, after all, a product of it. But he can secure the political and economic preconditions for such a restoration. And that is something the Left cannot and will not do. In fact, Trump has already taken great strides in the direction of restoration by his judicial appointments. And in other areas as well. But leftists, consumed with hate and blinded by it, cannot credit the man with any accomplishment. Their unrelenting negativity may well prove to be their undoing. One can hope.” - BV
Conrad Black on Trump’s enemies:
They are failing to make the distinction between Trump’s policies and his mannerisms. No serious person can dispute the president’s economic successes (especially the virtual elimination of unemployment and energy imports), his revival of a viable policy of nuclear nonproliferation, taking serious measures to stop mass illegal immigration, moving decisively to address dangerous disadvantages in some trading relationships, and shaping up the Western alliance from an association of freeloading beneficiaries of an American military guaranty. He is the first businessman to be president, and he engaged in a policy form of zero-based budgeting. The underlying premise for climate policy is unproved and almost certainly largely false; he scrapped it. The notion that the U.S. performed a service for international development and world harmonization by allowing the Mexicans, Chinese, and others to pick America’s pockets and export unemployment to the United States was false. He is scrapping that. The idea, cherished by Democratic politicians and Republican employers of low-skilled workers, that masses of people could swarm into the country undocumented, be exploited in the labor market, and not be counted anywhere, but still vote (Democratic) and use the welfare and education systems is an outrage. Trump is scrapping that, too. The country is tired of spending billions more every year on education to destroy freedom of expression in the university and produce ever-less-well-educated students in the unionized state school systems. He is attacking those problems, too.
Those things will never be a matter of dialogue let alone honest approbation, on this forum other than by a few.
Dave, you repeat 100x that I and “all of you” never criticize “the Left.” I’ve repeatedly pointed out that in fact I’ve often called their views you cite “idiocy” as I recently did again. So when you again insist that “none” of “you” on the forum do that, such a falsehood feels like you’re unable to recognize how much you demand a one-way street.
Your repeated insistence in the first place that others must echo your own partisan views (or else “dialogue” is inappropriate or bad tasting) makes no sense to me. I would not expect you to echo my views as a prerequisite to dialogue. Why would you? They are not your views. I only expect each of us to defend the substance of our own views.
Gee! Even the ancient Romans, had trouble with political “dialogue”.
Bob, as you must know by now I am not a US citizen. However, like it or not, I do have a stake in what happens in the next US election, as does everybody in the so-called free world - including my descendants, currently totaling 52 (incl. my sons- and daughters-in-law). Accordingly, it makes me very concerned when I watch what is going on in US politics. It appears to me that Democrats are far more focused on denigrating Donald Trump than “on the substance of policy differences”, to use your own terminology.
I truly believe, Bob, that you also recoil at the demonization of Trump that is coming to a head in the Democrat caucus. But let me ask you a question. (If I am out-of-line, you need not answer it). Are you a Democrat supporter given that a substantial majority of Democrat candidates appear to be in support of rabid socialism, rabid defined as “having or proceeding from an extreme or fanatical support of or belief in something”?
Depending upon your response, assuming you wish to respond, I will make further comment in a future post.
Yep, defiantly not the suave politician. My gut tells me that those traits made him successful in other endeavors and he is not willing to deviate from his success plan, though it rubs many the wrong way.
Well said. That is ‘bleedin’ obvious’.
In the U.S. election for President, although Hillary received the greater number of votes, Mr. Trump won because of the electoral system.
If you don’t already know it, a similar thing happened in the recent Canadian election, although we have a very different system for determining the Prime Minister. We don’t vote directly for the Prime Minister; rather we vote for one of the candidates, each of whom represents one the various political parties in a riding. The candidate in a riding who receives the most votes, sits as a member of Parliament. If the majority of members of Parliament are of a particular party, the leader of the party automatically becomes the Prime Minister, and there is what is called “a majority government.” If more candidates of a particular party were elected that those of any other party, but not the majority of candidates, then it is “a minority government.”
In Canada’s recent election, the majority of votes went to Conservative candidates. However, the majority of Candidates in Parliament are Liberals. And so Canada has a Liberal minority government. Thus Mr. Trudeau will continue to be Prime Minister. However, he won’t have the power that he previously had. If the majority of the members of Parliament oppose his decisions, those decisions will not be carried out.
Thanks for asking. I’m glad your nation has completed another election, and I appreciate that ours is also important to you. I feel a deep stake in it too, but No, I do not lean toward voting Democrat in 2020 in order to become “rabidly socialist,” in any sense of the non-democratic or communist style nations that critics of ‘socialism’ here have repeatedly cited. My view is such ‘socialism’ would be a disastrous approach. I prefer what many critics of ‘socialism here’ call Europe’s regulated capitalist economies.
My reasons for leaning away from the GOP largely lie in the host of reservations I have about Mr. Trump’s policies, integrity, careful character, and equilibrium. Of course, I’m left to hope the alternative choice is one that I would on balance find closer to my own views and sense of the leadership style that our tormented nation needs.
FWIW, I’m in Houston this week, and today’s “USA Today” editorial on the Democratic field reflects some of my own biases and observations about those choices.