There's nothing vague about it. E.g. just to use the obvious example these stories are about: He lauded, without adding qualifications, a comment that arguably

There's nothing vague about it. E.g. just to use the obvious example these stories are about: He lauded, without adding qualifications, a comment that arguably was over-broad and promoted hatred based on race/religion. Again, arguably; but also obviously - as in, that interpretation is an obvious potential one, even if you don't agree with it. And yet, knowing that, he still chose his action. He could have expressed a more reasonable opinion in any of various different ways, or in response to any of the various more reasonable criticisms of e.g. the ADL - but he explicitly chose not to. So, you may agree or disagree with the position I'm describing as "arguable", but the position is not "vague", and it of course implies none of the hyperbole you've resorted to in painting your opponents.