It is 2016.
I skipped the irrelevant wall of text because one hundred percent of candidates running are devisive.
Don't blame you. I can't stand to read my own crap. I'm out of practice, but will try to improve.
However, I'm not sure what point you intended to make.
The observation: "100% of candidates running are divisive". It's the nature of the beast, it's what an election is all about. However, it's one thing to point out your opponents record vis-a-vis your own, or his own advertising, and it's a whole nuther thing altogether to say:
He's a liar - he's the worse liar I ever met.
He's lying about my record (i.e. without clarifying the falsehood - usually the "lie" is not made up of whole cloth").
... and etc.
This is not a "normal" election. What's going on in the FReeper's blogs is not "normal" argumentation. My point is that we're better reset the tone and tenor of civil discussion back to evidence and logical argumentation, REGARDLESS OF WHAT OUR CHOSEN CANDIDATE is emitting, or conservatives and FR are ... um ... lightbulb, turned, around ... screwing? ..ed. (We're all gonna lose again, big time!)
The standards out on the Trump campaign, for example, are not those we conservatives tolerate, on this forum OR in real life. We need to be "consistent conservatives" ourselves before we start harranging our fellow conservatives about policy or candidates.
FReegards, my friend.