11) Confront Trash Talk with Rhetorical JujutsuThis impeachment process, especially the part where +40% of Americans are simply harding up their passionate support for Trump who clearly believes he's above all laws and ethics, by getting ever passion, if disconnected, from the real world facts by the day.
Contrarians depend on personal attacks to distract the discussion from their bankrupt “science”. Learn to recognize the game, turn it to your favor, be prepared to point out the juvenility of the tactic, while forcing the discussion back to the real world facts your contrarian opponent wants to avoid.
Has honesty, dignity, respect for evidence and laws and professional standards of ethics and enlighten-self-interest all been trashed by people who've convinced themselves they have God in their back pockets?
Worst and genuinely painful is witnessing the continued ineptness of Democratic communication efforts with their own grassroots supporters, let alone their inability to directly confront Republican deception and bullying.
Democrats haven't explained anything in a way that offers regular voters some rhetorical ammunition when confronted with the Republican's onslaught of ruthless deception and scorched earth attitudes towards others.
It feels like an all-hands-on-deck situation, but Democrats don't seem to get it. What I write is uncomfortable, so it's ignored. I'm told to make it feel nicer. I say, Democrats need to do better than peddling old bromides.
Since one of my bitches is that Democrats keep talking past Republican bullies when we need to be stopping them in their lying tracks, long enough to educate onlookers, by shoving GOP lies right back down their disingenuous throats with clarifications and explanations. Succinctly enunciate and clarify arguments in a way that resonates with people.
Here I share an example of what I mean when I suggest talking AT them, rather than past them, as our Democratic politicians do all too well. This has to do with a semi-local issue, but that's beside the point. I'm simply sharing some food for thought.
Oh and if any of this is resonating with some editor or agent or writing coach or political staffer type out there, someone who appreciates the potential of what I'm trying to do here. Please, I need some help. Might you have any to offer?
Dennis points to ANILCA and cries foul on behalf of Mr. McCombs,“There is a law that says the USFS has to grant access to inholdings.”Is that a fact? There’s another side to this story that's worth listening to, particularly if you want to understand the unrelenting opposition to the notion of bulldozing a Village at Wolf Creek into Alberta Park. ...
Dennis points to ANILCA and cries foul on behalf of Mr. McCombs,
“There is a law that says the USFS has to grant access to inholdings.”Is that a fact? There’s another side to this story that's worth listening to, particularly if you want to understand the unrelenting opposition to the notion of bulldozing a Village at Wolf Creek into Alberta Park.
In the 1980s Mr. Red McCombs (with pals LMJV) purchased 3 middle of nowhere San Luis Valley foothill land parcels which the Forest Service had been eyeing in order to pretty up map boundaries (seriously). He then engaged in those go-go '80s National Forest Landswap Poker Games and intended to parley those no-where foothills parcels for the bonanza at the heart of the Wolf Creek drainage basin, near Wolf Creek Ski Area.