People can be unfair about how their positions are summarized only accepting the most pristine, honorific, or generous versions. Someone can always claim a strawman is taking place, regardless of the fairness or utility there. Btw it's an informal fallacy. They're heavily influenced if not outright determined by context and semantics. They are themselves subject to disagreement. As I've said, I believe I've captured the substance sufficiently to argue against. You'll always be able to split hairs about how imperfectly I'm rearticularing your premises, claims etc. It's a waste of time. I'm just attending to the substance of the argument as it pertains to my disagreement. You can by all means direct my attention to the functional differences and how you think it'll affect the outcomes. But to the degree those functional differences don't exist I'll ignore cosmetic ones.
---the late great Donald Blake
To me, it looks like you're saying "your argument is whatever I say it is." I don't think you're actually interested in having a conversation with people, you want to have a debate about liberalism, or liberals, or Democrats, or with the authors you've read and whoever responds to you is just a stand in for that. How they respond to you is basically irrelevant, which doesn't seem fair to those willing to have a conversation with you. And to say "it's doesn't matter if I'm rude because you're rude to Trump supporters" is just asinine. I think zvelf and bd2999 are at least open to hearing what you have to say, but if you just want to act like a dick and believe you're superior, what's the point in having the conversation?