Yes, the problem is this; I’m not interested in what someone who is dumb enough to storm the Capitol building has to say. And they aren’t interested in having a debate on the facts either, so what are we going to discuss? I don’t get how we can come together and make this better...

Honest question: Who do you consider the smartest Trump supporter? Do you think you have anything to learn from them by engaging in a good faith discussion?

My point being maybe you think 95% of MAGA-hats are off their rocker, and Trumpism taken as a whole is grossly misguided. I don't really disagree. But is it possible that there's some core nugget of wisdom to take away. Something, perhaps that your current worldview is glossing over.

Instead of just writing off the political beliefs of literally half the people in America, maybe we should really be super certain that we make a genuine attempt to understand where they're coming from.

At worst, we've wasted some time talking to idiots. But my guess is if we make a good-faith and honest attempt to find the best and brightest Trumpists out there (instead of just smugly dunking on the dumbest trolls on the Internet), that maybe, just maybe there may be a kernel of truth underlying their ideology.

This is an interesting idea. But I bet it would amount (excuse the silly metaphor) to talking to more and more hyenas to figure out where Scar’s true ideology lies. Maybe it’s hyenas all the way down, maybe not. But why would Scar tell you?

Most of the "smart" ones that support him do so out of political expediency or for grifting, not because they have good points to discuss.

I don’t know how anyone can rationally support Trump after he has clearly stated a desire to overturn a fairly contested election. In my book that means agreeing with him at this point is essentially saying you don’t value democracy. The man has had meetings to discuss getting the military to rerun elections injustice the states he needs to regain White House... He’s been trying to push violence to happen, he’s a racist. I don’t really know how he can be morally defended at this point. I would have had more respect for his positions and voters before the election but what he’s done to the US is a disaster that will take a long time to fix.

> Who do you consider the smartest Trump supporter?

Depends how you define supporter. He’s received support from some smart, cynical and extremely nasty people; he serves their agenda, one way or another. But they’re not fans; they’re probably privately pretty contemptuous of him. The Mercers would be an obvious example.

If by supporter you mean the people who believe him about the election being stolen and so on, there are no smart people in that category. There are smart sociopaths who don’t believe him but go along with the idea, of course.

Not OP, but I'd gladly have a discussion with some coal miner who felt like politicians weren't representing him and fell for the populist rhetoric Trump would sometimes use.

The reason? I don't think that sort of person voted for Trump because of the idea of Trump or a cult of personality. They simply got duped and there are better solutions to their problems.

The folks that stormed D.C. are too far gone at this point.

Look into targeted individuals - they are similar to QAnon but clearly exhibiting classic schizophrenia symptoms and now organized and helping each other come up with ways to keep the thought rays out of their heads etc. I have no answer but I remember how intoxicating it was when I first got access to an world wide communication network and could learn from neuroscientists all over the world (as a then 16 yo I got flamed a good bit.). We for sure haven’t figured out how to use global networks safely.

This is total bs. I grew up in the 90s when tolerance was the word of the day and the exact logic was that the idiot with a microphone and a klan hood is only a problem if they're attacking people at which point the police handle them.

This reminds me strongly of the wait but why article on Overton windows. Highly recommended for anyone interested in this sort of stuff.

https://waitbutwhy.com/2019/09/american-brain.html

Media didn't exist in the public debate to begin with. The printing press opened that up. We're realizing with events like the one described in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judith_Miller how negatively impactful letting only a select few that are sponsored by the government to be part of the public debate.

My mother read a book to me called "The Emperor Has No Cloths" when I was very young. The book is silly, but it stays with me to this day. Every time I hear my president repeat absurd, dangerous and divisive conspiracy theories, this book always comes to mind. Same goes for the supporters that defend him.

Public debate is fine, but we are watching a huge population of people absurdly follow this man in his birthday suit. People so easily "persuaded" deserve the (non violent) pushback they get.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Emperor%27s_New_Clothes

Yeah, it’s increasingly obvious that the fable was wrong. People are easily led (and not just those who cling to Trump).

It's been a while since I read it, but don't quite a lot of people go along with it?

It takes a child to point it out, because everyone else is bought in to assuming the king couldn't be so foolish, so they must be mistaken.

Sorry, what I meant was this: after the child pointed it out, everyone acknowledged the truth.

What these disastrous last 5 years have proven is that people will refuse to acknowledge the obvious truth as long as there's a plausible lie they prefer.

To follow up: it was hard enough for the two parties to agree on policy when they couldn't agree on the impact of those policies. How do you predict the second and third order impact of a new law?

Now the parties, or at least their supporters, can't agree on the past and present truth of what's happening in the country.

When there's no common agreement on what basic truth is, you can't expect agree on policy to address the problems we face.