“I have relatives on both extremes of the political spectrum, and have had very interesting conversations with them all.”
By interesting, you mean conversations where both sides end up feeling deep-seated anger, but cover it up in the name of civility as is the custom in the phony world of intellectualism.
Anything you say is going to offend someone somewhere. The way you’re looking at this would mean everyone taking a vow of silence for all eternity. This idea that you can word arguments in this magical, intellectual way that won’t offend anyone and will be healthy for for the world is a total myth that only exists in the upper tier of American society. Most of us (deplorable rednecks who still know how to apply common sense) have gravitated towards the results-based approach like that of Trump (or Ocasio-Cortez on the inverse), and away from the pointless approach of Jeb Bush types that seems to be rooted in getting 90-year-olds to think, “hmm, he talks nice… What a nice young man he is…”
You had to risk offending me just now by responding to my last comment, right? I could have gotten really upset at you for disagreeing and accusing me of a aveira, right? Does that mean you did an issur? No. There is not document or scripture that guarantees a human right to “not be offended.” That would cripple mankind.