pancakes3 wrote: i'm rolling my eyes at the "discussion" because it highlights the problem with engaging with dummies. it's exhausting when the board has to teach deficient posters, especially when those deficient posters are incapable of learning.
See, now, I think it is critical to figure out how to engage with the intractable opposition and find arguments that might sway them. Even if you assume they are ignorant or mentally deficient, axiomatically half the country is of below average intelligence. In the case of daone1ssueposter a majority of his views are Democratic tenets. People should not starve to death, education should be more affordable, the tax code works against the middle class. Frankly a lot of what he says he agrees with, a president Warren would be trying to implement. And she already has a policy written to address it.
But, you know. Babykilling. So...
The question then is if there is a way to shape the argument that says, "okay yes, babykilling is terrible, BUT...." how do we save other lives. How do we make a better future. How do we provide child care and opportunities so that a young pregnant woman has confidence that when she keeps that precious baby there will be a social safety net or a future or health care or that she will be able to keep her job because there is good childcare and early education and nutrition programs for that unique sparlk of life that is a helpless infant. That her child is being born into an America that has a future for that baby, instead of hopelessness.
Or at least to say: okay you got your SC Justices, lifetime appointments. Can you call that a victory and move on to other issues? and recognize the turd we have in office is ruining our country and is a bad character guy who is selling out capital D Democracy to enrich his own family and his friends and cronies. That he is selling out natural resources, and selling our public health to whomever will buy it. Because you shouldn't have to have a health scare and sit in a hospital to understand that you are being lied to about health insurance issues. You shouldn't have to have something happen to you to develop empathy on any topic.
I don't know. Yes there is a lot to discuss that gets glossed over. But given who we did elect, I can think of no more critical issue than to figure out how to engage and influence people whose understanding of issues may be limited, due to corrupt influence of Fox news (--or any more subtle framing of the issues. Even if CNN or MSNBC gets in a froth about a salacious topic, it makes me look around to see what merger and acquisition or court decision or appointment happened that week that we should actually be paying attention to).
So. Look. We are here on this board having these conversations because we have exactly one thing in common. We like basketball. Otherwise when would you ever bump into a guy like da1oneissue? So given the leverage of having something in common, anything, grasping at straws, is it possible, to influence their mindset and say: hey, putting aside the differences, where can we agree. And starting from that point of agreement, how can we proceed to fix what we all acknowledge is busted and sputtering. In this case, America. Or politics in general when we look to England and elsewhere.