level of discourse. Some responded with predictable outrage we see here daily, others actually tried to engage and understand.

say they cant support Biden and will not vote, will write in someone or vote third party. I disagree with those who believe Biden poses the same threat to our nation as another Trump term does so I think choosing those routes is playing with fire depending partiularly if you live in a state where your vote will matter.

What I cant understand is longtime members of the Republican party that believed in what Reagan espoused supporting what Trump is selling, protectionism, isolationism, authoritarianism, retribution against enemies.

Student loan forgiveness aside the policies Biden is proposing or enacted probably align closer to the Republican party of Reagan than anythign Trump is proposing.

it as it's clear you've given it real thought and have spent time on it. And I think it's a starting point for a reasonable debate. What I can't respect are some of the knee-jerk responses to immediately discount what a poster says because of a disagreement, and then an insult or lecture to follow. I think inquisitive or counter points are a better approach, and I can say personally I've had my mind changed or at least tempered based on a few such interactions.

do that although I am sure at times I have failed.

I sometimes try to drill down to what people think because I feel people often disagree with the broad strokes but when you start to drill down you often find some agreements that can be the start of agreement.

I dont remember where I heard the interview but somewhere in the last few days heard part of an interview with an author who wrote on the topic of hwo to address conspiracy theories. The point was dont just tell people they are wrong but if ask why they care about that item you can start to have a conversation about what underlies it.

I am a liberal Democrat. That does not mean I think government is the answer to every problem but I also dont believe the left to its own devices the free market will solve all problems either. Most government regs come about because of a problem the free market created. A nationally renowned bank regulatory lawyer made that point to a bunch of bankers at a conference when he said rather than complain about regs why dont you stop your competitors who were screwing their customers that led to the reg being written.

We can all say there is too much regulation but would we really want to invest in a world without the SEC or buy food or medicines from companies with no FDA to name a few items.

Conservative but am not one of those who feels there's no place for regulations or government in general. I personally think we've gone far beyond what the founders wanted in terms of the size and power of the federal government, but can recognize where it is absolutely necessary. Entirely unfettered free markets also ends up with plenty of negative externalities. Many elements of Plato's Republic resonate with me. I also wasn't lumping you in with the bucket of my post, I think you're generally fair although I tend to disagree with you a good amount.

where we both walked away with things to think about which is a good thing.

I hear what you say about the founders original views in terms of power and size but I also think the world has developed into a much more complex interconnected society than they ever could have imagined. I think that comexity and interconnectedness requies a stronger national government.

don't name call or belittle, and seem to come at these issues with a measured approach. You have a fair point about the world evolving and needing a stronger federal government, and I see merit in that point. I do feel that we've grown more than that mandate though. Over the weekend I wanted to do some analysis on population growth vs. government employee and spending growth, but ran out of time. Perhaps that data already exists and I just haven't seen it. I also am willing to admit that that doesn't tell the entire story, as we've had entirely new industries created in the last several decades that aren't necessarily related to population growth, so it would require some kind of multi-variate analysis to prove my point. Perhaps the data won't even prove my point, but I have become conscious of the creep, particularly after a lot of the agencies and regulations were created after 9/11 that I feel haven't really made us that much more safe.

Anyway, I'm out for the night, but cheers, and thanks for your perspective as always!

Lectures take us further down the path of polarization. They make the lecturer feel good, but do nothing to change minds.

A better response (which - to this board's credit - several have offered) would be a genuine and straightforward query about what specifically Biden has done to make him more despicable than Trump.

I wish more conservatives would listen to Liz Cheney when she says (I'm paraphrasing) the country can survive bad policies in a four or even eight year administration. It can't survive dictatorship.

What I truly don't understand is people who say that they liked Trump's policies, when any other Republican from Mitt Romney to Ron DeSantis or even Ted Cruz would have gotten everything done that Trump did - from reversal of Roe v. Wade to tax cuts to you name it - and much more, including a better border policy, not needlessly pissing off our NATO allies, not putting in high tariffs that were against Republican policy since the Eisenhower administration, not releasing 5,000 Taliban prisoners for absolutely nothing in return, and on and on. If he even had an honest bone in his body, the guy flat out isn't competent at anything other than self-promotion. And if he gets elected again, he's not appointing people like Rex Tillerson, John Kelly, HR McMaster or even Mike Pompeo or Bill Barr.