Everything you said here is true and I don't dispute that-
AND YET, perception is STILL everything.
You can condescendingly call people name like naive, or you can meet them where they are.
Shillary called people names ('deplorables') and it cost her the election- and now the Democrats are out of power everywhere except in city mayorships.
Meet the little where they are. Don't you think there's a fundamental grain of truth to their concerns, even if the big picture is different?
If you won't see things through their produce, how do you expect them to come around to yours?
Sounds naive.
Is the word naive condescending? I was succinct and accurate. I don't believe that anybody will be convinced on this site anyway. I come here to learn, be entertained and not to chase chimeras.
@undercovergrow believes that facts don't have to be true, also that republicans are socialists. Changing undercover's mind is a mountain I don't think can be climbed. That said, I'm glad undercover responded back with an informative reply. I'm glad to gain a little more insight into the right wing view. We don't have to agree that facts are true or they are not facts nor do we have to agree that Republicans are or are not socialists. I doubt we will ever agree on these points.
Maybe we might agree that medicare is worth keeping, regardless of the label. Because Medicare has been shown to significantly reduce the rate of poverty among the elderly. If undercover has elderly parents, perhaps we can ally to keep this program in place. I made an opening towards this discussion but ucg didn't go that way.
Now you are saying Clinton lost the election because "deplorables". Do we now live in a world where the POTUS can say "grab em by the pussy" and the opposition is supposed to say to his vile fascist, racist, or misogynistic supporters something like
"how interesting that you should say that, let us discuss this further so that can we come to consensus of how you what you said, some would say, might have made people feel marginalized when you -- so mistakenly, I'm sure -- said what you did. Perhaps you meant something different from what I heard?"
You know what? I don't think of
@undercovergrow as one of the "little" as you put it. I think ucg's viewpoint is valid to ucg. Ucg is naive about the difference between R's and D's but that's what ucg believes. When somebody tells me something, I take them at their word until I know better. Just saying.
