Replies

I disagree with your characterization, so let me explain my point of view.

There are two different pathways to sharing knowledge: One is face to face or person to person in a forum to share views. The other is by investigating online, or via other media independently. When I speak to someone (specifically someone who is "undecided" in this example) to explain a given issue (either face-to-face or person-to-person in a forum like this) I do it rationally, and base my views on my observations, lessons of history, and my personal knowledge of a subject.

When dealing with individuals in discourse, civil discourse, I treat the encounter as such, whether online via electronic means in a person-to-person mode, or face to face. Exactly the same, or I try to make it exactly the same.

I try to make a rule never to say to someone online what I would not say directly to their face, and I would never say anything insulting to anyone face to face or person to person online as long as we are engaged in civil discourse.

I am human, with all the faults that go along with that, so if there is a departure from civil discourse on their part, what follows on my part will not be civil.

So, if someone asks me about my views (as occasionally does occur in my very blue state, if I encounter someone at the protests or standouts or even at my Republican Town Committee tent we put up at events) I engage in civil discourse, and this is a piece of an actual conversation I have recently had:

The conversation might go something like this:

UNKNOWN PERSON: Why do you support Donald Trump?

ME: Because he not only supports the important things I support, but his actions show that it is not just talk with him.

UNKNOWN PERSON: Like what?

ME: His stance on Climate Change and putting America first as his priority, not some foreign globalists in the EU. His support of Israel as shown in his move of the US Embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem. His efforts to reduce the volume of legislation that Americans are buried under, as shown in his first two years by the decrease in the size of the Federal Register. His understanding of what drives an economy, as evidenced in the increased standard of living for all Americans under his administration. His understanding that we can't have open borders and unlimited illegal immigration. His support for law enforcement. His approach to trade with China, to make it FAIR trade, not FREE trade for the Communist Chinese. Those kinds of things.

UNKNOWN PERSON: But aren't you bothered by his racist attitudes?

ME: Donald Trump is not a racist. Before he became President, he supported and associated with people of all races, creeds, and colors. And was quite liked by all. It was only after he became President that he was painted as a racist by his enemies.

UNKNOWN PERSON: He is crude, and I don't like the way he calls people names.

ME: Would you rather have someone who called people names, almost always people who attacked him first, and almost always deserving of the criticism, but who produced increases in your disposable income by cutting taxes, controlled people entering this country illegally, and kept our country out of war, or would you rather have someone who seems more "Presidential" to you but is destroying your standard of living, intentionally flooding this country with illegal aliens, and destroying our country in nearly every way possible? You have to make a choice.

And that is how I deal with everyone until they demonstrate they aren't interested in making choices or increasing their knowledge.

But when "undecided voters" are making up their minds by watching the news and swallowing whole what they are told, or "research" online for the pros and cons, taking what Facebook, Google, and YouTube allow them to see, is that "rational" in any way?

I just tried a search for grid to compare presidential candidates on issues and got back one that I didn't even have to expend a single second of research. But these are utterly worthless for several reasons, because they take candidate position papers and present them. If these were up-to-date, they would show Kamala Harris as being AGAINST illegal immigration and FOR cutting taxes.

And that is making the huge assumption that the suppliers of this pap aren't simply into Leftist advocacy which are playing the role of Communist Fronts from the 1930's to 1960's which had names such as Voters For A Democratic America or National Federation for Constitutional Liberties to fool people into thinking they were supporting organizations with American values.

My point is, nothing is an easy substitute in today's world for investigating on your own, and these people who are happy to get in front of a microphone and say they are undecided and haven't expended an ounce on really trying to find what is close to reality are a pox on an informed electorate.

We can't do anything about brain-damaged Leftists, and we can't do anything about people who won't even look at issues on their own, take 15 minutes to make a grid on five simple things, Economy and Taxes, Immigration, Foreign Policy, 2nd Amendment Rights, and Education and fill them in to make a choice. They won't even do that.

If a person does that and decides they are a Leftist, so be it. But if they don't do EVEN THAT, and expect people to respect them because they are "undecided", I won't be one of them giving respect.

Do you think that if Trump explains the issues in any manner as rational than he did in this conversation with Elon Musk (which I thought was completely rational) and has it filtered through NBC, ABC, CBS, CNN, NYT, WaPo, PBS, Fox, and any number of online disseminators of news or opinion such as Vox, Politico, New Republic, or a multitude of "fact check" sites, do you really believe that a person can make a rational, informed decision about who they support based on that?

If you do, then we have to part ways on this, because unless someone chooses to make the effort to find the truth because it affects them, their children, and their grandchildren, the VAST preponderance of what is GIVEN to them on which to base a choice is NOT truth. Not even close, and a MAL-informed citizen is worse than a misinformed, or uninformed citizen.

Do you really think that if Trump explains the issues with the eloquence of Ronald Reagan, that it will reach target audiences like these special "undecided voters"?