What I find interesting is the young people – they are on FIRE! They are hearing things not spoken of in Leftist schools; they are experiencing the birth of People’s Power in their lifetime. For the first time, they are “getting” what led the American revolutionaries to strike out.

Win or lose, these younger people will return to their homes, and spread the word.

I don’t need your explanation or interpretation of Richard Frenandez. Once again, you aren’t Cassandra for the present.

And then there is the whole misapplied comparison of Caesar fighting the Gauls (warfare more than 2000 years ago) applied to the present situation. A bit of a stretch? Well yes. Ah, a master of military history, strategy, logistics, who knew?

But I’m sure you have a explanation for that as well. It will be logical and historically accurate too, you will tell us so, so it must be.

I had already pointed out that GB was using a tautology in his Caesar reference before. GB replied that I was personally attacking him.

So if you had wanted people to point out flaws in your argument, GB, you might have wanted to be more consistent over the last few months or years.

As for Trump, it’s actually pretty wise of him to use his own family as the inner circle. If Trump started trusting in DC hot heads, his head might not reach DC, on top of his body. If this reminds people of a Merchant Republic, a patriarchy, oh well. There’s a reason those clan systems worked before.

Except you haven’t pointed out the flaws in my arguments, instead you pretend that an unsubstantiated accusation is equivalent to rebuttal. Then you erect a strawman argument wherein you claim that I have claimed an opinion to be a fact.

Compounding your obtuseness, you assert that I “continue to make the case for Trump,” when in fact… I continue to make the argument that, Hillary is the far greater threat BECAUSE her supporters IDEOLOGY make her the far greater threat than does Trump’s mob of supporters.

I have repeatedly stated that were it an open convention, my preference would be strongly for Cruz. Which dismisses the claim that I am a supporter of Trump.

“You make claims of logic that cannot be proven.”

Logic 101; premise, extending logic, conclusion consistent with extending logic chain and premise. IF it has those elements, the ‘logic’ is ‘proven’, which is NOT to imply that the logic is correct or accurate, much less the truth of the matter. Logic’s great flaw is that it cannot examine it’s originating premise. So to disprove a chain of logic, you must disprove it’s originating premise, which if not based in known fact is an opinion, which is unprovable until factual confirmation is uncovered.

But if the premise is grounded in facts, then the logic is unimpeachable. Disprove that the premise is grounded in fact and you disprove a claim of unimpeachability.

The admirable Richard Fernandez, in the post to which you refer makes several noteworthy assertions;
“If events run relatively smoothly till November the advantage will be Hillary’s. If things blow up, it will be advantage Trump, or at least disadvantage Hillary.”

I’ve repeatedly expressed the same POV.

Fernandez makes the point that lies believed (Leftist public) have no defense when reality exposes them as lies. He makes the point that they believe in falsities and deny realities.

“Then they wake up to the realization that what they thought fixed isn’t and are mentally defenseless against the terror attacks they unexpectedly experience.”

Which is WHY, every attack that occurs strengthens Trump and weakens Hillary’s support. The same dynamic applies to Hillary’s support for BLM, when cops are shot.

That is NOT ‘support’ for Trump but dispassionate assessment. In reaction, you shoot the messenger, which changes the veracity of the message not in the least.

I agree that the “rightly or wrongly” merits of OIF and Tarp are not the core of the issue because the core of the issue is in the politics, “perception”, the critical Narrative contest for the zeitgeist of the activist game.

The general will of We The People is a function of activism.

On the merits, Bush’s decision for Operation Iraqi Freedom was evidently correct on the law and facts and TARP evidently forestalled a global financial meltdown. Both problems were inherited by the Bush administration and approached responsibly and dutifully by the President.

Yet in the politics, the “wrongly” perception is social political product manufactured by activists, including Left-mimicking (who may be Left) Trump-front alt-Right activists.

In that regard, activism-averse conservatives and, by extension, the GOP that has futilely depended on the Right for competitive activism are at fault for the unforced surrender of the critical Narrative contest for the zeitgeist to the Democrat-front Left and Trump-front alt-Right.

The compounding consequential cost of conservatives’ chronic aversion to activism is “the perception of failure from the previous Bush presidency” that has chiefly enabled the typically similar Obama and Trump phenomenons, despite that the merits of Bush’s OIF and TARP decisions are, in fact, sound.

President Bush was right. But if right is stigmatized, then wrong is normalized. The country has veered wrong because of the unchecked activist-manufactured “perception” that the critical decisions that Bush got right were wrong.

Point out the flaws in your arguments and your arguments become facts. You continue to make the case for Trump, which could be a character flaw or a judgement flaw. You make claims of logic that cannot be proven.

Here is something to think about, beyond our disagreement.

https://pjmedia.com/richardfernandez/2016/07/19/battle-of-the-beams/

You continue to personalize. I guess you’re just congenitally incapable of objective evaluation when confronted with someone you dislike.

Logic is unimpeachable when premise, extending logic and conclusion are internally coherent and consistent. That is independent of whether the premise is viable, which is why logic cannot examine its own premise.

Instead of responding to my arguments, you instead attack my character. Evidently it’s lost upon you how badly that reflects upon your character.

“When the debate is lost, the loser resorts to slander” Socrates

If not more than GB misreads you.