This isn't a very well thought out idea so hang on, but while taking a shit I started thinking, why are we playing the lefts game? Why are we letting them put us on defense so often recently? During the elections we had the upper hand by putting them on the defense. So for instance, when it comes to gun reform, they wish to ban AR15's. We waste time explaining to them our rationals and they simply dismiss them and appeal back to emotion. You could spend an hour with one of them explaining all your reasons, and they'll look right back at you and ask why do you need a gun, the poor children, your conspiracies.. Why are we playing their game? Instead of trying to come up with reasons to persuade them to understand our way of thinking, which they never will, why not just spam them with questions which they will then have to answer, putting them on offense?
This isn't a very well thought out idea so hang on, but while taking a shit I started thinking...
idk maybe people don't want to be shot at school
How many people are shot at school each year?
Oh ok I'll play devil's advocate.
>How many people are shot at school each year? Don't know. Don't really care, but it happens and we talk about it. Seems to be a pretty important event when it happens. Most people will hear about it but I don't think they're going into the conspiracy weeds with you
So you don't really care, then why is it important to you?
emotional appeals to
>persuade them to understand our way of thinking
will be your only bet. You're fighting an uphill battle against children getting shot
op literally got baited into the whole scheme he wrote about to avoid
I was just talking about this with my buddy, how effective trump is at the emotional argument when the thing most conservatards want to do is to use rationalization ad naseum.
This is one of the key reasons that trump polls well with women when they arent msm zombies: the emotional delivery of an argument is really so much more important than the rational.
Sad and truly why democracy is destined to fail as an institution. The chinese know that humans must be led, cant lead themselves.
Explain, all I did was ask questions, didn't have to cite any numbers or explain anything.
Then why does it not effect every other area of life equally, for instance the age old comparison or teen driving deaths/gun deaths, I see no emotional outbursts about that, or anyone pushing to increase the minimum age requirements to drive. Is it that they have nothing to gain?
But even at that, what does the average Democratic voter have to gain by disarming the public. What is the rational beyond the emotional, emotion is powerful, but they must some self interest, right?
My theory is this: they want to bring about another Waco moment in american history. They want to offend the sensibilities of ordinary americans by plastering the stereotyped image of conservatives getting their guns taken away, and trust me if they try to take away guns plenty of people will die.
The media would have a field day. And it would be effective optics for the liberals since most people dont really "get" why guns are so important. Theyll just see white men with rifles shooting at police and federals and "feel scared". And then vote for democrats on the margins.
Look at what democrats push for. They have no principles, they just advocate for policies that they can wedge into favorable emotional arguments. Thats literally their whole party's MO and reason for existing (surviving).
And it works because guess what: women go for an effective emotional argument 9 times out of 10.
the NRA has it under control. just parrot their talking points.
the emotional appeal is your rights. I'm not saying they have a GOOD appeal right now but give it time. time heals all wounds. the NRA will just hold steady and weather the storm just like every shooting before and every shooting to come.
emotional appeals get stronger as the information gets diluted. reputable sources don't matter, facts don't matter.
>what does average Democratic voter have to gain by disarming the public
Well, for one they can't "disarm" the public but they will want at least some kind of concession that guns are a factor in the death of children at school.
>some self interest, right?
self preservation? We had a ban on assault weapons before and that isn't even on the table now. at least not even remotely close. Wait till the midterms. gonna get fucked hard by a blue wave.
>gonna get fucked hard by blue wave
dont believe the hype. trump polls are trending towards 50%. He knows how to close a deal. Remember 2016? I told my buddy early summer that for trump to win he would have to disappear from the public eye for august, september and october. He mostly did just that: toning down the controversy but staying assertive. Expect him to do that again this election cycle and watch the liberals lose their minds in buffoonery in response.
trumps not on the ticket tho
If they want to play the emotional game we can play it even better.
>you want to ban guns? So you want more women to get raped?
Devils advocate says the pistol is the great equalizer and won't be taken away.
Women deserve handguns. Men not so much.
But self preservation can't be it, the statistics they cite, .about 20 deaths due to mass shootings (4 or more) a year, less then 9 children or teens. If it was self preservation, or appeal to children, they would be at least attempting at banning less controversial things first right?
americans are party voters, 2018 is an unfavorable map for democrats even though their enthousiasm will be much higher than normal for midterms, but historically democrat turnout is always low for midterms.
Hence, the only thing that will generate enthusiasm for democrats is trump. If he stays out of the spotlight for 3mo roughly beforehand, it saps democrat enthusiasm.
See?
>they would be at least attempting at banning less controversial things first right?
Uh.. yeah? Like bump stocks? what makes you think they'll take it all on one fell swoop?
>If he stays out of the spotlight for 3mo roughly beforehand, it saps democrat enthusiasm.
You're absolutely right. That the party that controls the presidency doesn't do well at midterms is my point. I would argue, though, that the entire presidency thus far has been absolutely non-stop trump bashing and it's going to be hard to stay out of the public eye as the president.
as far as i can tell, the only time he is in the spotlight is when he wants to be. You think its just an accident when he writes his tweets? This man has spent his life playing the media like a conductor. He still does. I have yet to see him on the defensive.
well one reason we're playing defense is because the left is shooting up concerts and schools.
And no its not just opposition party turnout at midterms. Its issue enthusiasm. The only issue democrats have presented for their people is trump. So, they have given him complete control over democrats destiny in 2018. If he plays it right, democrats, moderate democrats and liberal independents will wonder if he was really that bad by the time they go to vote, and will (on the margins) just not show up.
Hopefully :)
But even bump stocks are controversial, I mean out of the realm of weapons all together, there are toys and packing materials, and food products that cause many more times the deaths each year than mass shootings cause, and since they're a less controversial subject they would be much easier to ban. So this isn't about lives, to the average Joe wishing to ban guns, self preservation just doesn't make sense, 9 children/teens a year, is statistically nothing. So what is the appeal to a Democratic voter that wishes to ban them, I honestly don't think anyone really cares about the kids, this is a game, a team sport, but at the end of the day politics comes down to the self, self interest, I don't see where self interest plays into this for an average Democratic voter.
You really minimize the impact of political mob mentality. People want to see the perp hung from the highest tree, but if they cant see that, they will accept some token that puts their irrational fears to rest, for the night.
Why not men? Just because you're a man, you have to be at the mercy of larger men and men in greater number? That doesn't seem right.