Hmmm, on one hand what you've written seems perfectly reasonable, but on the other hand I remain triggered. Perhaps breaking up your sentences into constituent parts was not as illustrative as I thought.

Let's see if I can figure out why I'm still triggered. For productivity, I will try to steelman your words.

- "No, it's implying that Trump's rhetoric has been primarily based on emotion rather than logic." - Agreed.

- "Because I find the term "globalist" to be invoked more often as a specter or bogeyman than to explicitly describe a particular and definite set of political principles - like "leftist" or "feminist"" - I see the point, yet at the same time, I wonder if you sincerely acknowledge that there is a genuine spectrum between nationalist and globalist preference. To me it seems obvious and no less controversial than capitalist vs socialist.

- "That is the primary motivation behind populism like Trump's, and what is "Make America Great Again" if not a hearkening back to some point in the past when America was "great", to which it must return? Otherwise, it would be "Make America Great," or "Make America Greater" or "Keep America Great."" - Here I disagree. Now, there's no doubt this statement, and the schtick around it is deliberately vague in order to nicely fit into a wide variety of world views (some racist I imagine). But where I (seem to) disagree with you is I don't detect a belief that it could be anything but a return to ~the good ole slave owning days. America, and the whole world, has changed drastically in the last few decades, there are all sorts of completely unoffensive things that it would be beneficial to return to. I wonder if this is psychologically similar to the "racist dog whistle" some people hear everywhere.

- "I was being imprecise. He's arrogant, narcissistic and belligerent, insulting his allies and goading his enemies, and he works against his own purposes because the dominance he's trying to assert is one that doesn't exist. The world is not scared of him, nor does it appear to be intimidated by him." - here I mostly disagree (other than the belligerent & insulting part), but I suspect this one would be irreconcilable.

If you're wondering why I go through the effort to write the above nonsense, it's because I agree with your next statement:

> I would have loved for this last election to have been an intellectual debate about capitalism vs. collectivism, and the benefits and costs of progressivism and globalism. Unfortunately, it wasn't. We got "Crooked Hillary" and "Crazy Bernie" and "Build the Wall" and lots and lots of heat but very little light.

I have a feeling if we don't identify what the root causes (ie: your words, which I suspect seem perfectly appropriate and accurate to you, "trigger" me in a psychological manner that isn't a simple disagreement, and undoubtedly this occurs on the other side of the spectrum) of the incredible political polarization, this problem is going to get MUCH worse before it gets better. A Trump can likely only get elected in this type of environment (see: https://www.epsilontheory.com/things-fall-apart-pt-1/), and if the same environment exists two years from now, it vastly improves his chances for reelection.