> I don't appreciate the gratuitous insult that we can't objectively discuss the actions of a past president.

Regardless of any point made on the subject, what one side considers objective, the other side considers biased and tainted. Your rejoinder on the existential insult (though a consequence of human nature) is noted -- and your wish shared that we could exist with any real semblance of objectivity. We primates aren't objective creatures when it comes to arguments that at least one side has turned its axioms into articles of faith.

For the record, I expect we agree substantively on an analysis of Trump's presidency, both in terms of motivations, outcomes, and impacts.