[Kitsune9tails]

Thanks for reading my post! I will try to be succinct.

It seemed like you had two main points:

1) Democrats need a better candidate; a person who is tough, strong, without controversy, and universally loved.

2) Donald Trump has true believers in his camp, and it's better to be nice to them than pick on them for their behavior.

1) I personally think the Democrats have a few candidates that qualify (no one is universally loved, but I get what you mean), but only 2 that both qualify AND whom I would like to see in the Oval.

2) It's more than belief; it's Faith. You don't beat Faith with antagonism.

But close enough for government work.

What kind of research are you doing to get these answers?

I have been engaging with people online, in Trump supportive Facebook group and in personal discussions. Seems like nobody I know in the flesh is currently willing to admit to being a Trump supporter.

You know, the lies and insults used to attack people who can't be defeated through and honest evaluation of the merits of a case.

So much of "the discourse" these days can be summed up as "I am going to use my perceived freedom of speech to try to get you to shut up".

They'll believe for the sake of believing.

I say this as a devout Christian: such is the nature of Faith. It is by definition irrational.

Exactly what what crime would that have to be? Many people won't even acknowledge that Obama didn't sell uranium to Iran. Trump once said, "I could shoot someone in the head on Fifth Avenue, and they'd still vote for me." Something to that effect anyway. He was right.

That's the thing; it varies from person to person (and hopefully from moment to moment). My pet definition of the word 'proof' is: 'evidence that I am willing to believe'. It's not the magnitude of the crime as much as it is the quality of the evidence. There are people who would believe that Trump did shoot someone on 5th Avenue if you just told them he had. There are others who would not believe it if they woke up in the hospital with a bullet wound.

Jimmy Carter didn't do very well. John Adams didn't either.

All things considered, I'd say both of those people are doing very well right now. I think that if you could converse with both, they'd say they are very happy with how most people think of them... and also that they had lived much longer than they expected to!

How would you answer someone that felt that way that wanted to know why you expected talking nicely to a "true believer" to do the trick when everything else had failed?

I'd say something like: "If you have tried 'everything else but' talking to them nicely, I think I see part of the problem. (also, it's not about expecting it to do the trick)"

A) Good guys don't do well as President.

B) What approach does work for getting an irrational, unreasonable person with nothing to lose and everything to gain to suddenly change tact?

A: It doesn't matter whether good guys do well as President; a bad guy should never be President, full stop.

If they are a bad guy, they will be bad to you, and they will be bad to you with all the power of the President. That is unacceptable.

B: Your key term there is 'suddenly'. If they are the type of person to suddenly change tact, they will just as suddenly change back as soon as your back is turned. If you want to change the mind of any person, rational or not, you have to be prepared for an investment of time at least, and possibly work as well.

Based on my observations, here are some shortcuts:

Acknowledge that Democrats are bad when appropriate. This freaks them out, because they are so dialed into the 'my team no matter what' narrative. When you say, "Sure, if Hillary has committed a crime, she should be locked up. The same is true of Trump." that knocks down the idea that you are just playing irrationally for your own team.

Be polite and nice within reason. Literally hold up your hand to get a chance to speak rather than interrupting, don't use insults, obey the Golden Rule. Remember that from their perspective, you are the irrational person; that narrative cannot be broken down, only worn down.

Agree with them 3 times in a row without directly disagreeing in between (listen for points or partial points in their arguments that you can agree with, like "Trump is President"). This seems to be magic. It won't 'turn' them, but it seems to set off a bomb in their consciousness that causes them to see you as a person. Once they see you as a Person and not as an Enemy, the conversation can begin.

You don't reason with Enemies. You can only reason with People.

Hope this helps!