The topic of the NYTimes article is not whether people should vote for Democrats.
Jane Doe, programmer

Most of that isn’t disagreeing with me. I wrote “it’s worth trying to pierce [Trump supporters’] information bubble” and “respectfully engaging people with different points of view is important,” and I meant it.

Groups you identified, such as “the Independents 65% not supporting Trump,” aren’t Trump supporters, so my argument isn’t about them.

Protests are a means, not an end. The end is getting Trump to voluntarily change (unlikely), convincing current Congressional majorities to oppose him (possible, but hasn’t happened yet), or electing new Representatives and Senators who oppose him.

Everyone who dislikes Trump’s presidency thus far can — and should — join efforts to achieve those ends. The Times article, and others like it, is about people who, on balance, do not dislike Trump’s performance as president, but feel victimized by criticism about their political choices. Their reasoning is circular: Trump opponents criticize them for supporting Trump; they support Trump because Trump opponents criticize them.

One clap, two clap, three clap, forty?

By clapping more or less, you can signal to us which stories really stand out.