OK, now you are making a substantive argument. That is something that can be tackled on its merits. If you just express a disagreement without saying why, nobody cares.

So what?

Can't it be both?

Hi Miles: Young Estonians speak English because Estonia is an outward looking country that wants to engage positively in the world. Young Russians don't speak Russians (or if they do, they leave) because Russia is a paranoid, inward looking country, obsessed by its historical demons. A negative attitude that the corrupt oligarchy in charge does its best to stoke. Russia has a great deal of potential but that potential will remain unrealized as long as Russians are willing to put up with cruelty and brutality in order to receive poverty and inefficiency. Your comments on the Russian media are incisive. Media bias is a very real and disturbing phenomenon in the West, but it is several orders of magnitude worse in corrupt dictatorships.

After seeing this, a friend commented that Trump is too stupid to even realize that he was the betaboi in this encounter.

I don't think Putin is as liked in Russia as it seems in the West. Dictatorships are good at sweeping things under the carpet.But they can't hide everything. Look at all the recent anti-corruption demonstrations in Russia. Demonstrations are more meaningful in places like that. Going to the streets is not just a fashion statement for the cause-of-the-month clubbers. There are real consequences for demonstrating.

My countrymen are feeling pretty scared right now. On the positive side, they are increasing the size of their military as fast as they can. Over there the consequences of political choices are real. Unfortunately, for too many people here in North America, politics is just a hobby with no serious consequences... until, all of a sudden, there are.

"I understand your point but to me it feels like splitting hairs. Is it a lie or simply a slanted report?" Between telling a lie about a matter-of-fact and not telling a lie about a matter-of-fact lies a chasm bigger than the Grand Canyon. "Slanted reports may well be more effective in misleading the public." Exactly. Understanding this is the first step in being able to combat MSM bias. "For example, I had a discussion with a group of friends recently, talking about Trump specifically and the US in general. Every one of my friends was horrified about gun ownership in the US. They talked about people getting killed because of the combination of road rage and gun availability and all sorts of silliness. I pointed out some facts and they scoffed. These aren't stupid people. But they have been affected by the slanted reports on gun ownership and gun violence that permeate the Canadian media." This is exactly how to combat MSM bias. "what do you think the difference - effectively, to the public - between a biased media and a lying media?" The first is insidious and do-able. The second is impossible, except under a totalitarian regime.

"Harpooning any ally is a luxury of the past. If that ally is "bad enough" then they are no more an ally, but part of the enemy." A Kremlin-Stooge is the Enemy.

HI Miles: A good test to to always make: "Before accusing the media of bias, I always ask, is it that they don't confirm to my bias or are they really bias."

"Have you ever posted here that Trudeau was NOT statesmanlike? Then you posted that Trump and O'Leary need to be statesmanlike." Ladies and gentlemen: this is Trump-era logic in a nutshell. If you are against x, then you must be for y. If you haven't said you are against A, then you must secretly be for A. Everything is digital. There are no shades of gray. There are no answers besides Us and Them.

Dear bmatkin: When did I ever say Trudeau was statesmanlike?

Hi money, er. I mean Miles: I agree wth all your points, but particularly the last one, that the GOP will happily toss Trump under themes the moment he becomes unpopular. On that point, I recently heard a podcast interview of a congressional insider who estimated that 85% of Republican congressmen are completely freaked out by Trump's erratic behaviour.

Hi Chris: I am deeply disturbed the the recent trend to treat political leadership as an unserious exercise in self-actualization. To keep our freedoms we need to get back to treating important decisions like this seriously. My worry about the CPC leadership race is that there are too many great options, splitting the serious vote between them, allowing O'Leary to win with 100% of the yahoos behind him. A similar dynamic happened south of the border with the GOP.

No. Trump lost those states too.

Dear Autoguy: Of the three GOP senators who disavowed Trump and lost, all had the same vote total as Trump or slightly higher.

Dear Monkey: Good point.

Dear Autoguy: So let me paraphrase your argument, anybody who says at this point in time that he knows Trump will be a good President is "off his meds". P.S. Most GOP senate candidates achieved higher vote totals than Trump. Paul Ryan was reelected with 65% of the vote.

Hi Monkey: When MItt first came on the scene I didn't like him much. I thought he was a spineless RINO. But he keeps making one good call after another.

Ha ha :)

Dear bmatkin: There is no need to speculate about my reasons. I have been very forthright about them, and I am happy to entertain specific counterarguments. As far as all the Hillary/Obama stuff you mentioned, that is most definitely a concern, but a lesser worry than peace in Europe and the breakdown of the liberal world order. These would have been paramount factors for me with any other Republican candidate (except for Rand Paul). But with the nomination of Trump, I am only working out the least-worst option as best I can. If the GOP serves me up a shit sandwich, I have no obligation to eat it.

Dear Bmatkin: First of all you contradict yourself. You describe Trump as not a conservative at all but then hold him up as some kind of a conservative standard-bearer. I will believe that when I see it. With regard to giving him a chance, did you give Barack Obama a chance when he won his much more impressive victory? Or did you, like me, assume (correctly) that he was a closet socialist and attack him from day one? With regard to why I don't like Trump, read my anti-Trump articles. I have been very explicit in my reasons. As I have tirelessly pointed out, the problem is world peace. Having a dictator-lover like Trump in charge of the world's biggest liberal democracy is like throwing a lit match into a gas station. This issue is simply far, far more important that the supreme court of any one country. And that's assuming that he is 100% reliable on delivering on that. (I have my doubts on that score.)

Hi Monkey: I am a right-wing conservative but I agree with almost everything you wrote in your analysis. I agree that the Trump win may end up being a Pyrrhic victory for the GOP - for pretty much all he reasons you listed. I will only add that long after Trump is gone, the Dems will hang the Trump name around every Republican they can, the way the GOP tied every Dem to Jimmy Carter for decades. And yes, in Estonia, they are terrified. The western liberal order that Ronald Reagan forged is coming apart. Too many people take for granted the historically anomalous peaceful times we live in. This goes especially for conservatives, who are baying at the moon about comparatively trivial incidents.

Hi Autoguy: First up is who the Secretary of Stae will be. Some of those rumoured to eb considered are good. Some are atrocious. We shall see...

Dear Bmatkin: 1. I did not assume Trump would lose, I feared he might win. There is a difference. 2. Winning is not the same as being right. That is also a difference. 3. I agree with you that Trump is not a conservative. But if this is the case, what reason would I have for supporting him? 4. Alternate explanation for Trump's increase in minority votes: the multiracial Obama is much more appealing to minorities (especially African-Americans) than an old, entitled white woman. Trump's vote goal was the same as Romney. Hillary got a LOT fewer votes than Obama. Trump won because Hillary lost. 5. I fight for conservative principles, and fight against opposite principles. Therefore I intend to battle the odious Trump vigorously and often until he is in the ash heap of history. 6. A GOP pick-up in the 2018 midterms would only happen if Trump's presidency were successful. Given what we know about Trump, this is not the way to bet, but I would be the most relieved wrong person in history if that ended up being the case. Mark