Guns: how much longer will it take ....

You've provided a plethora of evidence to the contrary.

All progressives are evil (as example) - is obviously an opinion, but you call it fact, even when challenged on its 'factual' nature.

It is a fact that progressives are evil people.

Well it is factually true that progressives meet the definition of evil.

Only evil people would deliberately violate people's civil liberties for no reason other than the fact that they enjoy violating people's rights.

And look at all the suffering caused to innocents when progressives abuse their power and prosecute them for imaginary crimes.

It is factually true that you are merely stating an opinion based on your subjective definition of evil.

You cannot provide factual evidence of that occurring anywhere, ever.

That scenario itself is imaginary.

The definition of evil may be subjective, but the question of whether someone meets a definition or not is a factual matter.

The fact that no one can propose any alternative motivation is evidence that the true motivation for doing this is the one that I provided.

As the most recent example of this, look at the many attempts to prosecute or impeach Mr. Trump.

For an example of an innocent person who was wrongfully convicted because the Democrats framed him for an imaginary crime, look to Scooter Libby.

Generally his thought processes are fine - except in discussions of a specific nature. If he has made his mind up - his mind will do cartwheels to continue to support his conclusion. Unfortunately, he has often already made his mind up about any number of topics.

As example, in this racism thing - he has been asked to show anywhere where, when a white & black person is in conflict - he:
- acknowledges perspectives of a black person
- doesn't ignore perspectives that support the black person (evidenced by him ignoring / never admitting such)

- acknowledges context that supports the black person
- doesn't ignore context that supports a black person (evidenced by him ignoring / never admitting such)

- supports a black person (he never has)
He can't post a single place where he has done so, and he has posted many posts in several such threads.

In interpreting vagueries (which is slightly different to the above):
- he ignores any context that supports the black person, and
- focuses on any context that supports the white person (he can't show where he hasn't done this)

- he calls irrelevant any context that supports the black person
- calls relevant anything that supports the white person (even if it is contradicted by the context supporting the black person, which he ignores)

- when multiple interpretations of an event or statement are possible, he focuses only on one...the one that supports the white person...often irregardless of context
This is evidenced in his writing, even while all vagueries rely on context to be interpreted.

He also claims as fact many instances that are purely his opinion, and will not back down from such claim when challenged (which is rather irrational when they are obviously opinion), which many, many posters point out.

His thought processes in this area would be fine if he acknowledged that is what he is doing (which there is very strong evidence for)...but deludely, he thinks he is not doing any of this.

trump packed the courts already, with far right unqualified judges in large part. The majority did not vote for him or his agenda. He set about destroying everything passed into law in the last half century. AT least twice he was the overwhelming choice for "worst u.s. president ever".

Wrong. The definition of evil may be subjective, but the question of whether someone meets a definition or not is a factual matter.

(1) Was MLK basically correct about injustices done in American history (and in England) to blacks?

(2) There are a large number of black people who have an amazing amount of character. I wish that I had their moral character. Do you agree that there are plenty of black people whose character is worthy of great praise?

Not when you make up the definition and rely on your opinions to demonstrate its utility rather than basing your argument around empirical evidence.

When I've provided reasons for alternative motivations in the past you've simply ignored, misstated, or misapplied them.

Both impeachment attempts were directly the result of Trump's misconduct.

The Democrats didn't "frame" Libby. The investigation by the FBI and Bush's Justice Dept. was at the request of the CIA.

I think that most of the world subjectively defines evil in the same way.