Edit: leaving original below to own my words. Political dialog has become more difficult than ever before, and I don't think it's accidental. That difficulty s

Edit: leaving original below to own my words. Political dialog has become more difficult than ever before, and I don't think it's accidental. That difficulty serves those to whom truth is at best an inconvenience. It should be focused on facts. Facts should be verifiable. Being that it's difficult for a human to process multiple things at once, it is important to discuss a single fact at a time. Since facts are effectively a collection of words, one must then discern what those words mean. Most of the time we can agree on the general meaning, but the language gives room to nuance, and nuance is guided by intention. Intentions matter (note the degrees of homicide). So when evaluating facts we should acknowledge the possible nuances and then look at the probability weighting of each one being appropriate considering environmental inputs. If one is interested in the truth, then one runs the numbers and accepts the results (or acceptably refines the weighting). It should be about "winning", it should be about what is right. If it changes the currently held understanding, then it's done its job. I welcome criticism of this. I welcome the opportunity to discuss opposed-viewpoints on facts, if in a good faith effort to find agreement on the actual meaning of the facts. I will admit failure of any policy action from a pol on "my side". I just want truth. ----------------------- original below ---------------------- I love HN for the intelligent dialog, and it always surprises me that intelligent people can fall for stupid things too (hey, myself included). @tomohawk, your whataboutisms are not accurate, and I would be happy do a address a single element of your claims (to avoid the fact distraction technique). Warning: we are in politics land on HN.