Been chewing on this reply. This is terrific. I very much support doing this kind of analysis. I wish I had this kind of analytical framework back when I was ac

Been chewing on this reply. This is terrific. I very much support doing this kind of analysis. I wish I had this kind of analytical framework back when I was active. To better understand the opposition, and rebut their rhetoric, sure. But also to better advocate one's own policy, to message craft an affirmative agenda. -- Say what you're for, not what you're against. Whatever the issue, there's a positive message. Say "Walk please" instead of "Don't run". For privacy it might be "I have the right to control my public persona" vs "Stop the panopticon!" Discussing policy using your opponent's framing is a trap. Because of the asymmetry of bullshit. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandolini%27s_law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandolini%27s_law I did election integrity activism for about 10 years. Utterly exhausting. Any effort rebutting your opponent's talking points is wasted resources. And they'll always come at you with ever more inane irrelevant points, seeking to discredit you, overwhelm you, muddy the waters. For law makers, anything ambiguous is radioactive. Make it easy for them to choose your policy. A great analog is Steve Krug's book "Don't Make Me Think". FWIW, lawmakers and their staff can only seriously consider 10s of the 1000s of bills up for discussion. It's an attention economy, they're doing triage, just like everyone else.