Reply to my own post because I rethought this after HN edit times are allowed. My major point here is not advocating for either side of the political discussion, it is this: When you use extreme rhetoric and attempt to exclude people from discussion because their views do not align with your own - you lose elections. I am very aware that the far Right's rhetoric is very similar to your own. _However_, you don't have the same base that they do. You're trying to cobble an electoral college majority together from a different place and falling into the trap of polarizing rhetoric is, imho, a bad idea for the progressive left.

Obama was able to do it in 2008 and 2012 because he was an _amazing_ statesman. It's my personal belief that we may not see another person as skilled in public speaking/appeasing the public again in our lifetime. I supported him both times despite my personal belief that he did not move the Overton Window very far in either direction.

What I do recommend is to take your more extreme rhetoric and see if it can be applied to your own positions (in many cases it can, in some it cannot) and try to determine for yourself if you are falling trap to 'regurgitated rhetoric' or legitimately offering critical thinking.

tldr; You persuade no one by taking a theistic approach to reason and perhaps alienate more than you convert.