Much of forum stuff is just point scoring and trying to best other posters, which works against understanding. Forums are really bad at fostering empathy, nuance, and allowing dissent.
*. *. *.
I just picked up a book called The Righteous Mind: Why Good People Are Divided by Politics and Religion. I'm hoping it will give me some insight into why many people refuse to talk to each other. or when they do, it's just shouting.
Agreed on the medium being far from an ideal place for nuance and that extends far beyond anything even mentioned in this thread.
That said, and I hope to not derail things, I'm not terribly comfortable with the idea that voting for a candidate means you're unequivocally in favor of every policy that candidate stands for.
I voted Clinton, but if the threshold to my vote being "correct" would be to agree with every single stance she had, I would have had to stay home. I did not agree with her in terms of banking reform (went into way more detail elsewhere, can do again if needed) and I'm not particularly in favor of a no-fly zone over Syria.
Rather, she was the best choice for me as to what was made available.
That is by no means giving a Trump supporter any kind of carte blanche either. Rather, the lack of nuance is a shame, even if it's primarily fueled by frustration and fear in the present. I'm an idealist and I don't hind behind that. For that reason, it's still my belief that anyone who aligns themselves 100% behind any idea, party, what have you, without first thinking critically, is a sheep.
If you walked into your voting booth last Tuesday and voted all down one column because you know who each candidate was and what they stood for, I applaud you. If you voted all down one column because of the (R) or (D) at the end of their name and wouldn't know either candidate if you fell over them, sorry, that's inexcusable no matter which column it was.