After losing control of the entire government, there is still this sense of: "I don't need to engage in debate with you". Its just not rationale.

The main lesson learned from Trump's campaign is that "rational" is far less important than "belief" and "story".

Here's what seems irrational from my perspective:

1. Bob votes to elect Mike Pence, who takes the position "Homosexuality is incompatible with military service" [mikepence.com]

2. Dan, who is homosexual and in the military and Facebook friends with Bob since they started hanging out in college, finds out Bob voted for Mike Pence.

3. Dan says to Bob, "Yo man, that's pretty bigoted of you to vote for that guy."

4. Bob says I'm not a bigot.

5. Bob doesn't empathize with Dan or understand that Dan is really just pissed Bob took away his ability to serve the country in the military by electing Mike Pence.

[mikepence.com]: https://web.archive.org/web/20020206052612/http://www.mikepe...

6. Dan doesn't understand or empathize with Bob that while Bob may or may not approve just one aspect of a politician but that believes Pence is better than 'x' and thus is also a bigot.

I think that's where we disagree.

Given, Dan can't change the fact he's gay.

Given, Mike Pence has formally expressed that "Homosexuality is incompatible with military service" and signed into law legislation allowing businesses in Indiana to kick out gay customers when he was governor of Indiana.

Given, Mike Pence's party controls the Congress, Executive, and Legislative branches of government.

It follows it is likely harmful to homosexual people to elect Mike Pence. And the burden for explaining why that risk is okay falls on the people who vote for Pence and who don't want to be seen as racist, because it sure looks racist.

So if the other candidate was Hitler (and happened to support homosexuals in the military)...Bob is a bigot unless he supports Hitler.

Taking the extreme positions in a logical argument help to reveal the inconsistencies.

Its all about what each party prioritises.

The liberals prioritised certain things above all else. Its a very principaled yet emotional approach.

> It follows it is likely harmful to homosexual people to elect Mike Pence. And the burden for explaining why that risk is okay falls on the people who vote

If an establishment candidate like Hillary is seen as harmful to Bob, is there a burden on Dan to explain why the risk of voting for her is Ok?

Maybe, can you put your example in context?

Bob doesn't want to be drafted into a war with Russia, say.

I'm pretty sure if you said to someone that you were worried a vote for Clinton is a vote for war with Russia then that person would understand what you meant. A person might disagree with you, but a person is not going to worry you feel the way you do because of their skin color or religion.

Does that distinction make sense?

People should ask themselves deeply why this happened and start researching. Because that would be a rational response, not "protesting" with destroying property.

100% agree with this. Specifically, I'm trying to do three things right now...

1. Investigate "why"

2. Avoid partisan statements

3. Ask myself, if it were Obama instead of Trump would I feel the same way. And if the answer is no, I keep searching for the right message.

That could easily be a rational decision.

> And they decide that based on emotions

No it could not. What you just said defies reason.

I am saying what you just quoted is not always the case. To say "and they decide that based on emotions" is entirely unfounded. Plenty of people do, sure, but plenty do not.

As an aside, I should note that weighing ones' emotions in a decision is not an inherently irrational process.

ok understood