I trust that overall you attempt to provide a balanced view. I am unsure if you achieve that. Where you lose me is when you say: “The disregard for the president’s achievements by the left, together with the same kind of wild rhetoric they so relentlessly condemned from him, has eaten away at the soul of American culture as much as any offenses committed by the president himself.”

You equate the criticism from the Democrats — calling them ‘the Left’ is tendentious as Democrats are full-on pro-business and pro-capital --with the bottomless lies spouted by Trump. That is like saying that reasoned argument and facts are on equal footing with outright lies. Sure their arguments might sometimes be somewhat biased and facts sometimes cherry-picked, it is politics after all, but it is not standard procedure and it is a completely different level than endlessly repeating “we won by a landslide” without any proof, coupled to actions such as phonecalls to pressuring governors to simply “find 11,780 votes, just 1 more than they have”.

When Trump lies and others call out the lie, then only one is wrong and the other right.

Lying to the people who trust you to serve them, and abusing the office of the President, to fraudulently, force another electoral outcome than the one voted for by the people, amount to treason — and I didn’t mention “we will walk to the Capitol and fight like hell or you won’t have a country left”, just after his personal lawyer (wtf?) Giuliani told this audience to “trial them by combat”.

Also when you state that the President is no racist, you may be right, but he did say that Mexicans coming illegally to America, are rapists. Maybe he doesn’t believe this and he is just angling for the racist vote. Is either justifiable behaviour? There are other strokes that are much too broad (‘the majority are better off under Trump’, sure, if you are in the business of undertaking, in the medical profession, work in pharma or in investment banking) to make a man who is incompetent, only driven by ego, who has demonstrated to be of less than average intelligence, dangerously narcissistic and not the least interested in the common good, as a flawed but viable President. Every man and woman is flawed. Some people are more flawed then others. Some have flaws that should prevent them from being in a position of responsibility. We know now that the American electoral system does not have the necessary checks and balances to prevent a popular extremely flawed and dangerous person to become President. Maybe that socialist idea of quality education for all, is worth considering, so that voters (and writers) can better differentiate between facts and valid arguments on the one hand, from unsubstatiated claims and plain lies on the other.

Please do not equate facts and arguments -- valid or not — with unsubstantiated claims and lies.