I suppose the third type of person is a revolutionary, who wants to throw it away and start over. But then what, continue the cycle of revolution once the next generation arrives? Or is there an end point? Do you think it can actually be achieved? From a practical perspective, does human nature allow that?

I mostly agree with you about the bubbles. Getting outside your bubble is extremely important. It's important that they get outside, but additionally it's important for each of us to step outside our own bubble to make sure it isn't happening to us. None of us is above that affect, and it's instinctive to seek validation of our own preconceived notions. Trump has a propaganda machine working for him, but his opposition has an equally powerful machine working as well. Would you recognize it? Can you tell when it's the machine and when it's the truth? It's pretty tough to separate out the noise, especially in a place like this that has an overwhelming sameness of opinion.

That's just demagoguery. There's a guy I know who thinks progressives hate America and everything they do is for the sole purpose of destroying it. It's like that. I get that it's far simpler to reduce your (political) enemies that way, but it's lazy and uninteresting to me.

Not even to try to understand them so that you can address the root cause of why they like him? Or is the fact that they like him evidence of them being irredeemable and flawed humans? In that case, how should they be dealt with?

Thanks for actually answering the question! I would distill it down a little further though, and say that the difference between conservative and progressive is that progressives believe that human nature is malleable and that the system can be used to drive humanity in a positive direction. On the other hand, conservatives believe that human nature cannot be fundamentally changed and that attempts to do so will result in dystopia of some kind, or an overall decrease in happiness as humankind strays further from it's nature. Obviously there are people within either of these camps who take things way too far. I don't remember where I read this theory, but it's the only one that has held up over the years and in various contexts.

If you have no interest in a discussion, you can just say that.

You literally made no effort to understand my comment.

I don't believe in putting the worst possible spin and interpretation on one person or party and giving the other a complete pass. I was hoping for an objective assessment of conservatives motives and beliefs, but it was pretty much the same old "conservatives are racist". Trying to distill it down to racism is ignorant at best, but is more likely just another opinion piece with an agenda. Is Trump tapping into nationalist tendencies? Well yeah, but that's not what characterizes conservatives in general, and it's not racist in and of itself. Nationalism isn't necessarily racist (though it can be, and to some it is), specifically it's pride in what the nation stands for and what is required to maintain the nation the way it is. Or at least the essence that makes the nation. Again, to some this has racism at its roots, but to most (in my experience), it's about ideals and values that are irrelevant of race. What do you think are the core differences between progressives and conservatives? What is the true, fundamental difference in world view between one who is conservative and one who is progressive?

Are you saying that there is no opinion in that article? That it's all facts?

No it's just that it's written for a much smaller audience than I thought it was going to be. The article is fine and seems to accurately depict the position and perspective of people who don't like Trump or conservatives.

It's just that I thought it was supposed to be objective and a fair representation of different perspectives, and it clearly isn't.

Based on op comment, I thought it was going to be an objective assessment of different views and perspectives, but it obviously isn't. Maybe that was my bad assumption.

No need to be pedantic. My point is that the author clearly likes Harris and doesn't like Trump. The author does a good job illustrating the perspective of people who like Harris and don't like Trump. But someone who likes Trump and doesn't like Harris would say that the author doesn't know what he is talking about.

Whoa, how did that happen?

I remember at around the turn of the century, Abercrombie stores in malls would have young men standing shirtless by the doors during Christmas season. Sometimes in nothing but boxer shorts and Santa hats. Super cringe.

Well, it's very accurate from one perspective anyway. The author is obviously a Democrat/progressive.

Firearm-related deaths are a leading cause of death in 1-19 year old kids, but homicide is a fraction of that number, and school shootings is a fraction of that fraction. The biggest category for firearm deaths are accidental shootings in minority communities in the city. School shootings is not even close to being a leading cause of death.

We had a new Engineer start, fresh out of college, and he was terrified to call people at first. Now, only a few months later, he much prefers it as a more effective means of communicating.

The term RINO has actually been around for a long time, since George H Bush.

Do you mean that housing should be provided by the government? By the tax payers? And what about maintenance? Is that also provided by the taxpayers? So they would pay people to come fix up the house you live in for free? I guess I'm just not quite sure how you think it all works.