I do not know what this reference to my person in this post is intended to achieve. Clearly not a vote of confidence.
I do not want to protract this discussion or disagreement, which as far as I was concerned lay buried in the past. In light of this post, however, I proffer this one additional response, which I hope will suffice to lay this matter to rest.
I dare say that when President Trump makes a decision applauded by Jews who live in Israel, and I applaud that decision based on my thoughts on the matter, and this author characterizes the decision as personal aggrandizement on part of President Trump, and my thoughts on the subject as irrelevant, I definitely am not the one imposing an emotional interpretation on the facts.
If the targets of President Trump’s decision, not evangelical Christians in America, Jews in the Homeland, inclusive of Prime Minister of Israel on worldwide television applaud the decision, I have the consensus of opinions of targets of the decision that the decision by President Trump is not an exercise in personal aggrandizement. When this author claims only President Trump benefits from the decision, this argument does not line up with the facts, does not line up with response of Jews living in the Homeland.
Who then I ask is imposing emotions on the discussion? I never challenged this author’s right to disagree yet he thinks he has a right to challenge my right to a different opinion? Who really here is interacting with emotions?
I am on social media to build community where possible not to engage in attempts at denigration or assessment of any other person’s intelligence, rational or emotional. Much like it is in the workplace, social media is not a forum for taking out of any personal frustrations on other people.
I hope this response suffices to put this matter to rest.