I think you have boiled this down to a lazy political argument.
Where did I do that?
Here.
two people who are considered to be on opposite sides of politics
Then
I didn't make a statement on what his politics actually are.
I think you did.
This was an interesting podcast because it did not fall into that trap but you have managed to shoe horn it into your post.
I think you did.
You can 'think' the sky is falling too, doesn't make it true.
It is a fact that I did not make a statement on what his politics actually are.
I'll quote again, note the bold portion that shows you're factually incorrect.
It's refreshing to see two people who are considered to be on opposite sides of politics, can sit down an have a constructive conversation.
See? No assertions of his stance anywhere.
Neither of your quotes are me 'boiling' anything down. I didn't comment on the content in any way. So you are confused, lying, stupid, or most likely, an insincere baby trying to pick a fight because he feels threatened by other views. Take your pick.
I made a comment about the tone of the discussion, that is all.
that trap
What trap?
Did you learn nothing from their example?
I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and pretend that's not intended to be passive aggressive, and it's just honest questions from someone that's a little confused.
Where did I do that?
No. What I said was "considered to be on opposite sides of politics*.
I didn't make a statement on what his politics actually are. He does hold views that are classified as 'right' in American politics.
I would consider his views more in line with Classic Liberalism. But that too is often labeled as being 'right'.
Political classifications take different meanings depending on what side of the ocean you are on, and many other factors.
What is a little more clear is that Rustle is championed by many modern american liberals, while Jordan is condemned by them. So seeing them display that there is no animosity between their ideology is a nice example.