Hmm. Seems like quite a leap from, "wage stagnation isn't a plausible reason why someone would vote for a billionaire conman promising to cut taxes on the rich and deregulate Wall Street" to "the question wasn't made in good faith." Like, do you just think your point was that self-evidently correct? Don't see any issues with it? I don't really know what to tell you other than that I don't see any plausible connection there and I can't see why you would, aside from the common tendency of people to think that if only X had done what I wanted, Y (bad thing) wouldn't have happened. I agree that people shouldn't be classist pricks (it's the wrong thing to do), but follow the train. You talked about the rise of Trump being avoidable by addressing populist concerns. I said that the primary populist concern that people wanted addressed was a rising minority population (and a related rising level of social equality). Not supporting their viable opponents in elections. That's fine (I disagree, but whatever), but at least here you're acknowledging that it's a difference of principle rather than a disagreement between people with principles and people without principles. Again, in this train, I was criticizing the idea that your opponents are people who argue for expediency over principle, while your allies are angels. There's a *difference* of principles (as I said, is it worth it to harm millions of people in order to express your petulance or not).