This story is unavailable.

There’s a problem with your suggestion, in it’s premise: That there are enough people on the other side of the aisle willing to have a dialogue. In my experience this is just not the case. In my attempts to persuade my libertarian and “center-right” friends as to why they ought to get on board I’ve been met with the following unscaleable obstacles:

  • No agreed basis for discussion. As in: “I cannot agree with you that Trump is doing a poor job in office even when you use his own words and actions, put in historical context with previous presidents and the actions *they* were held accountable for by Republicans.” I get that one a lot, and it’s basically a deal-breaker, how can I have a meaningful dialogue with someone who won’t accept any objective, neutral case comparison for what we are talking about? This is mainly a deflection tactic, but it’s an unassailable one.
  • No agreed source for information. I cannot even agree on any minimally biased source of evidence to use in any argument, no matter how innocuous, like a chamber roll call reported by the government itself. Every source I could name is considered “tainted”: Science is a liberal hustle, media is controlled by the left, the internet is 100% falsehood even the .gov sites are run by “the Deep State”. How to a communicate with someone who has decided that there is no validity to any of the fact-based statements of my argument?
  • (snip) To be con’t, toddler interruptus…
Like what you read? Give James Pappas a round of applause.

From a quick cheer to a standing ovation, clap to show how much you enjoyed this story.