Hillary has spouted her latest diatribe against us "Rubes" while in India. The media and some prominent Dems/Libs/Progs are beginning to publically disavow these comments, suggesting for the most part that they wish Hillary would just go away. We should not be distracted.
All current leftwing comment (since the "collusion" narrative can no longer be credibly sustained) on why Hillary lost is now about what a disaster her campaign was and that it was her disdain for us that led to her campaign mistakes. They would like us to forget that ...

a) they all have the same opinion about "us". However, by going after Hillary they can disavow the messenger without being asked about the actual message.

b) as a party, the Dems have no positive national agenda and neither did Hillary. They are truly the party of "Identity Politics" only, which they can't admit on a national scale.

c) a whole lot of people voted against Hillary solely because she is a criminal, and the fact that the Clintons had enough influence (and the Obama administration had enough clout) to get her off doesn't change that.

For any of you who want to discuss these points, fire away. For those of you who want to say, "Well, what about Trump?", start you own discussion.

Must be a "fair and balanced" article if you have to ask.

The primary premise, that Republicans and conservatives are the same, is demonstrably false ( see my post on "The Five Parties") which pretty much destroys your entire post. But, for the sake of discussion ...

Others have correctly answered the government spending issue; I can't add anything profound.

Both sides have framed the abortion issue as one of morality, "woman's right to choose" vs. "life of the unborn". And I would like examples of "bitter cruelty" to the LGBT community. I just can't see that making people use the bathroom of their birth gender qualifies as cruelty.

The two premises you site from the Reagan era may be questionable (including the fact that either premise is actually conservative belief) but that doesn't make them wrong. In fact, this country has performed pretty well throughout its history, being run by Christian white men and embracing capitalism. Continually dwelling on the flaws and failures may be food for your political base, but doesn't erase the actual history.

As to climate change, for most "skeptics", the issue is not whether the climate is changing. Of course it is, and always has. The issues are 1) How much of the current perceived change is due to human activity; 2) What are the best, most cost-efficient, least disruptive methods of dealing with it? As long as you "scientists" keep using the issue as a justification for massive wealth redistribution, the skepticism will remain.

For better or worse, we have proved over two centuries that our form of government works most efficiently as a 2-party system. We have had more at particular periods of our history, Whigs, Know-Nothings, Greens, Libertarians, etc. Eventually, these were absorbed into the big two, although sometimes the remnants have endured for decades after any relevance has vanished. Unfortunately, we now have 5 distinct political groups, all of which are influential enough to actively block most attempts by any of the other groups to govern at the federal level.

Conservative Party: Although grouped with the old Republican party, this group is currently best represented by the "Tea Party" label. (It also contains The "Alt-Right", a variation with such few numbers that it is immaterial nationally.) Obvious beliefs include a smaller federal government, a strong military, and conservative social policies that are often based on Western/Christian values and beliefs. However, there are not sufficient numbers of conservatives to move their agenda without the votes of the ...

Republican Party: Labeled by the conservatives as RINO's (Republican in Name Only), this is actually the most centrist group of the five. However, in order to get elected, they must get conservative votes, which means that they lie about, or at least hide, their true political values. At best, they are the "go along to get along" party. Their obvious dilemma is that saying one thing and doing another will eventually get you unelected, a real problem when their one obvious value is getting re-elected.

Democratic Party: I will use this label for what is left of the "Southern" or "Reagan" democrats. This is the group that was mostly ignored by Ms. Clinton, thereby electing Mr. Trump. It is mostly working class ("blue collar" to use an older phrase) people whose first concern is their personal economic well-being. They are the ones most likely to ask the question, "Am I better off now then before" when going to vote. They tend to lean towards the conservatives on cultural and social issues. There are very few of them in positions of power or influence at the federal level.

Liberal Party: This is now the mainstream for people with a (D) after their name. Obvious beliefs are a powerful and expensive central government, and a complete social engineering agenda. This is the group now in charge of most of the mainstream media and most of our public institutions. It is also the group that is increasingly being rejected by the voters, especially at local levels. The public face of this group is almost completely secular and viewed as being anti-religious. Their current models for good government are the social-democracies of Europe. The label "Progressive" applies to the more activist members of this party and to the members of the ...

Far Left Party: Small in numbers but have shown that their willingness to use violence as a political tool can intimidate the liberal party into silence and capitulation when it comes to institutional practices and democratic (small d) policies. This group would completely tear down our system of government and replace it with a complete socialist economic and political system.

These descriptions are all generalities with numerous exceptions, but the labels provide a starting point for discussion. Take any issue of the day, look at all five party's position and actions concerning that issue, and tell me how we can possibly govern in our usual (and historically successful) manner.

I live close enough to Rockville, Md. to follow the news about the alleged rape of a 14 year old girl by two undocumented men, ages 17 and 18. Today's stories were about positioning by both prosecution and defense in anticipation of a trial.
Question 1: Are people here illegally entitled to constitutional protection? If they are, how do they get a jury of their peers? Most juries are found by using voter rolls to identify potential jurors. There shouldn't be any illegal aliens on voter rolls (voter fraud doesn't exist according to one political party).
Question 2: If the jury is composed of all legal citizens, doesn't that imply a bias against the defendants? (It would if I were the defense lawyer and lost the case.) Such an argument could lead to an immediate appeal if the defendant's are found guilty.
Question 3: Rockville is in Montgomery county, a self-proclaimed "sanctuary" county. As the county goes to extraordinary lengths to protect the rights of the accused (which has already started if you read the comments of various public officials), who is protecting the rights of the victim?
Observation: Every time "sanctuary" cities make the news, it is usually a situation where people here illegally are being protected at the expense of legal citizens and public safety.
Final question (I've asked this one before): Why do liberals support the idea of sanctuary cities? What is the benefit to the local citizenry and to the country?

We didn't break things, threaten to secede or withhold taxes. We didn't riot or refuse to obey the law.

The set-up: A political party is insistent that both the United States government and its citizens accept that party's economic, social, cultural, and governmental ideology. That party's agenda is rejected by the voters in a national election, at which point the leaders and followers of said political party begin to actively work to impede and interfere with the legitimately elected government. So, where are we?
We are in the year 1860 and said political party is (of course) the Democrats. The problem was that the Democrat's entire way of life was propped up by the abomination of slavery. The result of their discontent was the Civil War.
Jump ahead to now. Once again the Democrats are insistent that the entire country adopt their agenda or suffer the consequences. Are we headed for another civil war? Such an idea seems unfathomable and yet the Democrat's "resist" rhetoric and active civil disobedience, and their talk of secession and withholding tax payments could be early 1861 all over again. The only real difference (besides the actual issues at stake) between now and then was that then, the Democrats only wanted acceptance of their values by the rest of the nation, not wholesale adoption.
So, my question to Democrats is, why are you so sure that your ideas and policies are the only correct ones now? You were horribly wrong in 1860; you could be wrong again.

So, if the negatives far outweigh the positives for sanctuary cities, what are the reasons that liberals support them?

Come on liberals!! Other than some emotional arguments, justify sanctuary cities.

Serious question, what is the logic behind sanctuary cities? In what way do cities/communities/citizens benefit from establishing sanctuary cities?

I will point out that by supreme court rulings, the federal government has jurisdiction over immigration law and policy, so let's not go down the states rights road as some are trying to do.

I will start with one obvious contradiction for sanctuary cities; many of have already passed (or their states have) or are trying to pass minimum wage laws as high as $15 per hour. It does not make sense to allow the labor force to rapidly expand with unskilled labor while shrinking the labor market by increasing wages.

The meaning of the word sanctuary is, "a place of refuge or safety". Are our citizens safer because of sanctuary cities?

Well, you couldn't derail the inauguration so now what do you do? I have some ideas, some immediate and some long term.
1. Make sure your taxes are accurate to the penny; the IRS is under new management.
2. Move immediately to California. Once they secede their immigration policy is sure to change, what with the lack of federal funds and all that. New arrivals from the "heartland" are sure to be screened.
3. Immediately divest yourself of all investments from the heartland and boycott all products from the heartland. In other words, starve!

Those were to be done immediately, the rest are long term.

4. Find an aggrieved or downtrodden group for every letter of the alphabet. Then, when you reference the "alphabet community" we're all included.
5. Build huge "safe-place" complexes all over the country. They can be staffed with soon to be former EPA and VA employees.
6. Schedule one entertainment-media complex awards show per week. Feature the usual speakers (Streep and Di Caprio come to mind). They will serve as a constant reminder of why Trump has the title President in front of his name. (Disclaimer: I wasn't going to post this; it seemed too snarky. Then I heard Ashley Judd's tirade at the women's march.)
7. Invade Area 52 en masse and build a Stonehenge or Pyramid type structure out of indigenous materials. Maybe the aliens that arrive will impose a "new galactic order" since that new world order thing has failed.
8. Public works - build walls around each sanctuary city to keep the immigration authorities out. Could be a bi-partisan project if you start with San Francisco and the wall keeps Nancy Pelosi in.
9. And for goodness sakes!! ... find Hillary a job. The job description can't include anything about accountability or personal responsibility . Mayor of New York City is perfect; or possibly, The Vu!

Is Hillary Clinton a criminal? Let's do the math.
To start, let's list 5 (there are a whole lot more) criminal acts that she is alleged to having committed.
1. perjury
2. mishandling of classified documents
3. "Pay-to-Play" conflict of interest issues
4. destruction of evidence
5. obstruction of justice.
Let's give Hillary the benefit of the doubt and assign a probability of only 25% that she is guilty of any one of these examples.
Taken as a group then, the probability that she has committed at least one crime is approximately 72.3%. So, with just these 5 examples, the answer is, by almost 3:1 odds, yes.

Several days ago I submitted a post that asked a question, "Why do liberals have to control every aspect of human existence, or destroy what they can't control?" I've read the negative responses, not one of which actually answered the question, and have been gathering more facts and examples. I can cherry pick supporting statistics for my argument as well as well as you liberals. ("There are lies, damn lies, and then are are statistics" - Samuel Clemens).
In the interim though, news has happened. So at this point I only need one recent event to support my premise. When the liberals thought they had James Comey under control, he was the greatest public servant in the history of the republic. Now that they see that they don't have control, they are sparing no effort to destroy his career and reputation. So liberals, spare me the vitriol and the hand wringing over Comey's actions and answer the question.

Interesting post. It doesn't answer the question I asked, I did not refer to Democrats or Republicans anywhere in my post, and it in no way refutes any of my arguments either specifically or generally.

Except, the public school problem. This is something I know a little about, having been a public school teacher for 36 years. That the federal gov't. is trying to control public education is beyond argument, Common Core is just the latest example. For examples of liberal attacks on charter schools, study the current attempts at regulating charters in liberal bastions like DC and New York City or every attempt to cut public funds to parochial schools. And since you referenced a lack of spending on public schools by Republicans, lets continue with the DC example. A city totally controlled by liberals for several generations has the highest per pupil spending in the country and by every metric used to measure educational success, is a miserable failure at educating its citizens.

So, without the bombast, answer my question. Why do liberals have to control every aspect of our lives or destroy what they can't control.

What is it about the liberal psyche that makes them want to control all human behavior? Or, if they can't control it, destroy it? There are the minor (in a global sense) vandalisms, destruction of Trump signs, keying and egging of cars with Trump bumper stickers, creating disturbances at Trump campaign events. All because they can't control (yet) all political speech. (I have yet to see one news story about destruction or vandalism of a pro-Clinton anything.)
On a bigger scale, The Occupy movement and groups like Black Lives Matter think nothing of destroying entire communities. When was the last time that conservative groups rioted in the streets? Again, since they can't always control law enforcement, and some municipal governments, destruction is their answer.
On the national level, liberals now control most of the governmental agencies that come into contact with the public, the IRS, the EPA, the FCC. These organizations are in the process of destroying conservative organizations, our energy grid, and our ability to communicate freely. They control our two biggest law enforcement agencies, the FBI and the Justice Department, thereby having no watchdogs to contest their control or stop the destruction. They can't completely control the military, so they have destroyed both its military readiness and its obligations to our veterans. They can't yet control big finance (too big to fail just means to big to control) although the Warren ultra-liberals want to break up the big banks; thereby making them easier to control. (As an aside, Hillary Clinton will not attack the financial industry, that's her golden goose.)
Finally, as any engineer will tell you, over control of any system ultimately results in the destruction of that system through its inability to self correct (negative feedback). As proof I offer public education, which has been mostly destroyed in all jurisdictions where the liberal unions are in charge; it's impossible to get rid of an incompetent teacher. Of course, they're trying to control or destroy all forms of private education, charter schools and religious schools.
So, I repeat my question, what is it about the liberal psyche that makes them want to control everything, and destroy that which they can't control?