Discussion»Questions»Politics» Why do so many people automatically answer a very specific political question about a candidate with a rant about the other?
It may depend on the question and the volum of questions. Say someone posts question after question about a certain candidate constantly running them into the ground, whether it's warranted or not, it gets some people to the point to where they post opposing views of said questioner. If both candidates are dirty then all should be aired.
Precisely! This is a point I've raised with the anti-(you know who) crowd on MULTIPLE occasions. After a while people begin to feel sorry for him on account of all the obsessive ridicule he gets. After a while he appears more the victim of bullying than the bully. That translates into votes, so at a given point such posts work against the cause of the poster.
I would either ignore it at some point and just post my own question to introduce a piece of information you want to share.
I am obviously not a Trump supporter, but if someone asks me specifically to read or listen to something that has to do with the question at hand, I will. It may not change my mind, but I feel like it's more of a credible discussion if people hear each other out and at least acknowledge something they had to say.
I don't like either one of them. They are both lying idiots and neither one should be elected. This is by far the worst election year I can ever strengthener.
There are many people on here that I don't agree with politically, but you can have a dialogue with them. Then there are others that just want to automatically dismiss anything you offer and go on a rant.
Yes, and it's far from a new concept. It's called the Strategic Offensive principle of war. George Washington espoused it. Sun Tzu likely referred to it in his tome.
Never said it was a new strategy. Doesn't mean it's making any debate more qualitative though. In fact if you want to debate one of the ground rules is to listen to your opponent and meet them where they come from. Well, that's another talk. Have a nice day.
THAT is exactly what I try to strive for. If it's a question I think I can participate on, I really will try and hear what the other person is conveying.
It is how it should be. Unfortunately it isn't the most used form these days, and it starts with our politicians and continues with the supporters allowing them get through with this kind of non-debate. Ugh.
For the same reason that people who post a question about the evils of one religion will receive rants about the evils of others: some people have a hard time addressing a person/issue without contextual conflation.
WM BARR . =ABSOLUTE TRASH 