'Grossly exaggerating' uniformity is a bit disingenous itself, given how fundamental anti-gun politics has become within the Democrat party. My 'two choices' were laid out as I see them, which is why they're both 'my choices' --fancy that.
No, its not disingenuous. Your statement was a gross exaggeration... or maybe a better term would be 'grossly stereotyped to a fault'.
How can you possibly see and say that there are only two choices when the link you attached show how a person can be placed in a majority of the area on the illustration and fall into a few different labeled groups at the same time?
It only illustrates how a persons beliefs can have elements that fall into multiple labeled groups.
So while your two choices are as you see them, you provided support that contradicts what you see/say.
http://pre07.deviantart.net/89d7/th...ctrum_simplified_4_by_shirouzhiwu-d5zpetj.png
Be honest; would the methods, techniques, and processes you used to win over your inlaw be practical to apply at large, though?
Yes, absolutely (of course, not universally). If you can present facts that are easy to understand and supportable, and also present facts and supported data in easy to understand way that proves their side is spewing lies and exploiting their trust, I find that people listen because no one likes to be made a fool and taken advantage of.
One of the problems on our side is that we (not me and you, 'them/they') don't initiate or respond well to the anti's statements. For ex. Anti says 'we've got to ban AW's, if we can save one child'. We reply with something like 'Those jack-booted thugs are taking all our guns and turning us into a communist / solcialist / fascist country.' And most people don't buy that, whether or not its true, because of the way we presented the counter and/or they way we talk down about, and to, them.
I said:
"But the funny thing is.... still leans liberal on social issues, now owns her own gun... has a great time shooting his AR.... and votes nearly the same as the extremely conservative guy."
You said:
"This despite her opposition to almost everything else in the platform, right?"
NO.... NO NO NOOooooooo. Not "almost everything". I think this might be, where I believe, you and many others really miss the mark.
Per the illustration YOU linked, it shows that a person can fall into A LOT of areas where-in they have multiple beliefs that notably are inclusive of the (in your words) diametrically opposite Parties
The illustration you linked shows that this issue is far more multi faceted than your narrower view of 2 choices.
That fact is, is that politicians, who are serious about getting things passed, present Bills etc that primarily support their party but also includes enough stuff the other party will support so it will pass.
That's how a large percent of the country votes... for the candidate that appears to support most of their beliefs (or, least worst candidate).
Why????, because people realize the world isn't black and white and it is ludicrous to think a Party, or anyone else for that matter, is going to 100% share their exact beliefs.
As pointed out, there are anti gun R's and pro gun D's. Its not as simple as you make it out to be and your illustration shows that.
You trying to make your point by using terms such as "diametrically opposed" and "utterly intractable" undermines yourself because they
are such strong words that they are un-true on their face.
And trying to portray that its only a 2 option issue, 'as you see it', and then go on to provide info that doesn't support your own view, doesn't help either.
I'll be primarying as a Democrat in order to try elevating pro-gun Dems within Texas as best I can
But by doing so, you are supporting the D party of which you said earlier:
Theo, perhaps the real issue is the party with whom you agree on all these other issues except this ONE being so utterly intractable with regards to firearms issues. I mean, is it more rational to expect a group with which you otherwise are in full agreement to be more accommodating, or the one with which you are nearly diametrically opposed? Just because you're pro-gun and want to support pro-gun politicians, it's pretty unrealistic to expect an embrace when you stand in defiance of --whether you like them or not-- what are much more popular stances among their group.
So why are you providing any support the D's?
Ding Ding Ding... because deep down inside, despite your writings here, you do understand that it isn't as 2D dimensional as you portray.
And in fact, you're stepping out into the ka-billion dimensional world and going right into the D partys' house even though you stated its more realistic to get the party that mostly matches your belief to change than engage and try to change the party that you would disagree with on most issues.
So what we have is that:
1) The wording you use is so strong that it appears false on its face. (grossly exaggerating)
**btw, its also an example of a poor response type to an anti because its so 'out there' that they will tune out everything else you say just like you (not you personally) do to them.
2) Your illustration you provided doesn't support what you say is your view and underscores the grossly exaggerative wording you use.
3) At least some of your actions don't coincide
with the words you are using to prove your point; which ultimately undermines your entire argument.
I have very good long-distance acuity, and at least try to reach the same clarity in politics.
I don't mean this disrespectfully...
I don't think you do in this case and thats mainly due to the contradictions of your statements and proposed actions.
Or maybe you do, but have a hard time expressing it with out contradicting yourself (
which I suspect is probably the case)
I understand that there are individuals, many individuals even, which do not fit these categories; but they do not matter as far as influencing their party leaders.
What?!?!?! Voters don't matter to their Party? What kind of logic is that?
If either Party sees #'s moving to the other Party, they change or the Party becomes extinct. The ideology of both Parties has evolved just over the last couple elections.
I agree with you in the sense that someone like Hillary will never give up and that's because she feels that stance will keep her in power.
However, the People make up the Party. Eventually, Hillary will be long gone... her followers will be forced to listen to some other D leader. The D leader will get their leader position by D Party Members and other D leaders.
Get the members to see the light and eventually the D party will be more acceptable of the 2A or become extinct. Until then, yes, voting in more pro 2a D's is helpful too.
Conversely, if the GOP doesn't listen to their Members, they'll loose members.... to the Tea Party, or Libertarians, or Independents and they'll experience back lash and their members are showing that NOW.
It works both ways. The fact the Bernie and Trump are doing as well as they are is because the 2 Parties are not listening to their Members and as a result, their Parties are being weakened by the own members.
Your comment is wrong and its shown to be wrong, daily, on the news.
But perhaps you'll agree that your statement that a Party's member don't matter influencing their leaders was an over statement..... and if you do....Then stop talking like that!!!!
Using over the top wording doesnt help... it hurts the cause because it just isn't believable on its face and undermines everything you're saying to the listener and can drive a difference of opinion into a alienating wedge.
This isn't an 'either A or B' issue because the human brain is much more complicated than that. The illustration you provided shows that. And, your actions show it as well.
Believing and promoting that it is, is not beneficial to your own (our) goals.
Now.... having said all of that... I DO think you have some good points... and if I'm correctly reading into what you are trying to say, you are largely right in conceptually correct in a global overly simplified way