Well folks, this seems to be the only writing I'm doing of late....
So with no apologies, here are my thoughts:
One reason that politics has become so contentious is that the 'pot' in essence the reward for those who hold the power in the nation has become ever and ever greater. Lord Acton said "Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely." (That may be a slight paraphrase, but I think it captures the essence of what the man intended to convey) I have often said that the larger an organization becomes, the more corrupt it becomes. This is because the larger an organization becomes, the more power it obtains, either through money (which is best described as a certificate of service [Dr Walter Williams]) or force of numbers of people who agree with the general agenda (or who feel that they dare not disagree with the general agenda) of the organization. Thus capturing the catbird seat (or visible leadership) becomes ever more contentious as it puts the people who back the person who captures that seat into positions to have vast wealth and power in their control. This would not be so if it weren't for the fact that the government has asserted that it should control things it cannot control.
In a society that is functioning well, family members, friends, and neighbors should be able to disagree about their viewpoints regarding political candidates (including Trump) without damaging their personal relationships. This may be difficult at first, but we should recognize that it was much more difficult in the past, as in the aftermath of the American Civil War. Abraham Lincoln at that time wisely encouraged the nation, "With malice toward none, with charity toward all, with firmness in the right as God gives us to see the right, let us strive on to finish the work we are in, to bind up the nation's wounds …."
For a nation to continue to prosper, we must be able to discuss policies without impugning the character of those who advocate for certain policies, no matter how difficult that becomes.
But what of policies? Which ones are best? More and more government control? I've mentioned above that the more the govt controls, the more contentious the sides vying for power will become, so you may guess that I would say this is a bad idea, and that any group who advocates for more govt control is probably up to no good at best.
But what about safety nets and the like?
Well how about the govt gets out of the way so that I can work? Then I won't need their hammock! People are more closely related to squirrels than to ants. So the work of a man, if I may be blunt, is to provide his own store against the storms that beset his life, not to depend on the community to provide for him in his time of need.
More people who believe socialism is a good thing would be best advised to study the life cycle of either an ant nest or a bee hive. Come back after you have watched the ants or bees put the unproductive out in the fall and tell me again how your idea can do otherwise?