1.  See previous reply.  Follow instructions in 3)
2.  See previous reply.  Follow instructions in 3)
3.  See previous reply.  Follow instructions in 3)

You've already shown your entire position to be self-defeating and illogical.  Case closed.  I'm ignoring you now.

Restating StarDoor's points would only convolute the back-and-forth more than it already has been(so much text!). But something has to be said since he's in the minority here. His argument(s) are intelligent and solid.

Even if you disagree with someone it seems absurd to me that we delve into the practice of blindly obliterating everything said person puts forth. If you're confident in your own arguments it should be easy to see when someone makes a good, fair, or excellent rebuttal without feeling that your own points will vanish as a result. You can be piecemeal in your criticisms and general debate tactics.

Kinda makes me understand this whole 100% "unfriending" concept we're talking about...

It is reasonable, in the current political climate. Friendships do literally end based on diametrically opposed political views, and the level of hatred and vitriol this time around is probably as bad as it has ever been. So strongly partisan people will consider it reasonable and appropriate to cut ties with people who support a candidate they see as fundamentally a horrible person. Indeed one must ask why you would remain an online friend with someone who thinks a truly awful individual is all good and is a fantastic presidential prospect. Cuts both ways of course, because a lot of Trump supporters think Hillary is a rape apologist, if not outright accessory to rape, as well as being corrupt and should be in prison. If you actually think that about Hillary, why would you be friends with someone who thinks Hillary is a fine upstanding person worthy of being president?

This is not a moral question.

It certainly seems practical, since if he has basically declared very strong support for Hillary (I assume), then a lot of Trump supporters would probably unfriend him anyway, and being asked to unfriend him would probably convince any other Trump supporters to unfriend him.

That's actually quite surprising. I wouldn't expect a traditionally blue-state like Pennsylvania to have that much divergence in education funding by race. I'd assume that there's some confounding variable there, but maybe not.

And he was fired for this: "Robert Weissberg argued that white nationalism itself should be abandoned in favor of finding segregated white enclaves to live in—which is what many white people are already doing."

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/4/11/1082627/-The-Bob-Weissberg-I-knew

It's ridiculous how racism has gone from "discrimination based on race" to "any implication that races aren't identical in all respects or even exist at all."

I want to know the end-game of people who want to cut ties over differences. Because it might not be in support of their end-game to cut ties. Yeah, they don't like the beliefs, but by unfriending them they polarize the relationship and thus increas the level of polarization within the country. It enables others who were on the fence about unfriending, regardless of what side they're on.

Think of this as the second-part of the main question. So maybe you feel personally comfortable living a life without others in your circle/echo chamber. But what will that do to society as whole? Additionally, what will that do to yourself as person? Friending like-minded people yields a less diverse social circle by virtue of itself alone, and also by virtue of the fact that political affiliations can also correlate with differenct backgrounds, socio-economically, religiously, culturally, career-wise, you name it.

I see the moral implications of polarization as bigger than the practical implications. Implications that I think, for most people, would not be congruent with their beliefs and/or poltical goals.

Ah Facebook stays funny...

Your political opinion wouldn't matter as long as you're a friend, you'll be a friend. That means not shoving your political views down the throats of those around you, which your colleague definitely does. So I'd unfriend him, but not because he doesn't support Trump or because he supports Hillary, but because he's a douche. As simple as that.

On another note, I wouldn't unfriend him, he's the kind of people that no one would want to have as an enemy, cause they're not very smart and very resilient in their "holy war against those who think differently". Just let it be, and laugh.

Are you sure it wasn't this? 
"When Jews get together in a safe environment and they begin to talk about blacks, if they really are honest and forthright they will use the term schwartze. ... It is not necessarily a negative word. ... It is not a derogatory term. ... It always, always implies cognitive inferiority ... gullibility, emotional excitability, and a weakness for here-and-now conspicuous consumption. ... Violence, especially interpersonal alcohol-induced mayhem is also associated with schwartze.  In other words, the image that comes to mind is ... a rather simple-minded, impulsive, easily seduced by trinkets kind of thing." 

As he is a Jew, I think it can reasonably be inferred that he uses this word and considers this an accurate description of what he means when he says it.  It's interesting that he considers this not a negative term for blacks. 

Until you dismantle the entire partisan system, this is what you're going to get, and it's only going to get worse. The experiment in partisan democracy is running its course and it is running out of legitimacy. A new form of democracy must replace it if you want people to become less divided and isolated into their own like-minded groups.

"Muslims voting Cong is secularism while Hindus voting BJP is communal

Blacks voting Obama is democracy while whites voting Trump is racism"