The point being? In a civilized discussion, you simply would have accepted that my evaluation differs from your.
In a civilized world, I do accept that the rightwing authoritarian propaganda feed coming from Breitbart and Fox and the US media, the think tanks that guide and set their parameters and vocabulary, contains "evaluations" of people and events that differ from my own. And I know why that is.
But do you really want to be reposting their garbage as "evaluations" of your own? To be a parrot of scum is your goal?
It means, the criterion for putting it into the "you are stupid" wastebasket is applicable. That's all.
Since your "criteria" have repeatedly lead you to making false claims of easily checked fact, you have grounds for suspecting they are flawed. Right?
The point being? Everybody in the Soviet empire was aware that there is not much economic strength. But that the military strength is comparable.
The military strength was nowhere near comparable, as the examples you posted illustrate perfectly. That was concealed from the American people under a flood of exaggerations and deceptions, to justify the profitable military buildup of the Cold War - which makes sense, but: Why do you believe them?
Meanwhile, your isolationist has just launched his first military venture in the project to - if he acts as he said he would - kill all the Islamic terrorists and their families everywhere they live on the planet.
Brooks made a point, Trump isn't your typical Republican. He is in fact an ethnic nationalist.
There are very few Brooksian typical Republicans in the Republican Party. There are about 60 million "ethnic nationalists", including all but a couple of the Republican Congressmen and the entire current Executive administration as nominated and selected by the Republican Party. This has been the case for David Brooks's entire professional career.
While I don't agree with Brooks on many issues, the man is intellectually honest
No, he really isn't. Flagrantly isn't. Of all the virtues you could try to assign to David Brooks, intellectual honesty is the least credible. He is the typing, talking, top of the food chain epitome of bad faith in intellectual analysis. You could put his picture and a collection of quotes from his columns in the encyclopedia under the heading "intellectual dishonesty".
When Brooks accuses the White House of holding ideologies which aren't consistent with the Republican ideology Brooks holds dear, people should take note. You just don't see that in American politics.
The supposed "Republican ideologies" Brooks pretends to hold dear haven't been seen in the White House since Eisenhower.
But Trump does reflect with the Republican Party has become
Trump is a direct continuation of what the Republican Party became in 1980. Dress Reagan up in an orangutan suit and give his second wife a boob job, and what's the difference? Ok, twenty points of IQ in the wife and the chance that Trump isn't going senile, but otherwise? Nothing in the way of policy or basic agenda, nothing in the way of electoral base or corporate backing.
But that doesn't mean the man is evil. It doesn't mean he is wrong. It doesn't mean he is lying
Doesn't mean he isn't, either. And he is. Always has been.
As I previously posted, I can see that happening if Trump continues down the path he is on.
It won't happen if the Republican Party continues down the path it has been on since 1968.
Isn't that the problem he identified in his article?