A very nice write up ruined by very partisan ramblings in the end. There is nothing wrong in believing in liberal cause, but to consider the other side as devil incarnate is a bit disturbing.
I've noticed that my liberal friends have even gravitated toward this leftist propaganda that the other side is made up of bad people. It's part of their core and part of their strategy to divide and conquer. If the other side is made of bad people - then your side will never leave you. In fact they won't even engage in discussion with opposing viewpoints.
We have historical examples of evil and destructive regimes being legitimately elected. It's not impossible.
Sacca claims we are observing another example, right now, in America.
Your comment says destructive and evil in the same sentence. Again - being destructive or making bad calls - doesn't make you a bad person or evil. Incompetent yes; evil probably not. Every politician does destructive things, especially when those things are often subjective based on your philosophy.
The equivalent on the right is when they say that their opposition hates America because they have different perspectives and want to drastically change things. That's not cool either.
What's interesting is that if you look at history, the leftists are by far the most evil (Mao, Stalin, etc) and it's not even close. Evil is not a word that should be thrown around loosely like the leftists do daily.
"These oppressive zealots in the White House"
"fighting a despotic regime"
Of course he can have an opinion, and it seems like everyone's got one. It's less clear why the reader should care. And statements like this:
"My career would not have progressed without the leadership and contributions of immigrants of virtually every race, ethnicity, and faith. Period."
I mean, there are a lot of races, ethnicities, and faiths in the world, and not all of them care to immigrate. The hyperbole just smacks of virtue signaling, which some people enjoy and others don't. Depends on how you react to the signal, I suppose.
Why is everything that democrats/liberal say deemed "virtue signaling" now? Do liberals have any genuine principles at all? Are some liberals signaling these virtues to other liberals who genuinely have principles, or is "virtue signaling all the way down"?
(BTW, I'm not American and don't identify neither as liberal or conservative)
The principle they adhere to most strongly is that the ends justify the means. Virtually everything they do flows from that.
Of course, that leaves the questions of what the ends are, and whether their means will effect them. From recent history, it would seem that the answer to the latter is, to some degree, yes. However, there is now significant pushback, leading to further polarization on both sides. The two sides do not ultimately desire the same ends, although many politicians claim that they do in order to establish a "moderate" position and retain their seats.
We may be in for some rough times ahead, politically. However, the Constitution has seen us through worse; as long as it is respected by those in office, we will ultimately come out intact. But I'm afraid that is not a given, since one side now sees the Constitution as "living" and evolving to meet the interpretations that will help effect their ends. If only they would pursue the amendment process instead of...creative interpretation.
You'd rather he signaled vice?