I'm not really sure that this answers my question.
I'm interested in how what we share hopes to influence others of a different viewpoint.
So to you:
"It's absolutely pertinent to the discussion what kind of people Trump willingly choses to put into positions of influence."
To someone else it wouldn't be, so I'm interested in, for example, how you'd go about influencing/debating with someone who didn't share that viewpoint?
The GP post does something I've seen a lot and raises a point with an implication that because they find that point to bad, it obviously is bad and no further persuasion is needed.
For instance:
"I don't doubt Trump's intentions, but it's looking like the alt-right is using his campaign (and will use his administration) for their own ends."
That's reads as an implication that this is a bad thing, perhaps because alt-right is bad.
I'm interested to hear how the poster would hope to influence someone of the opposing view (that alt-right is good). To me, it would seem that raising a point that someone else thinks is actually good wouldn't be a way to change their mind, but I see almost everyone in this and other debates do it.
So I guess I'm just trying to understand what/how raising points like this (one the poster holds self-evident if holding their viewpoint but otherwise unpersuasive) could hope to persuade someone who thought the point raised was actually good.
I'm also trying to avoid sounding like a dick over this. I don't know everything so my view that this sort of point raising might not work may be wrong, so I'm trying to ask about the actual process of influencing others who share different views.