I'll try and respond to this as best I can, because I think you raise some good points and they should be addressed.
Firstly let's be clear that not everyone who is a Republican is a Trumpist. There weren't 69 million votes for Trump, there were 69 million votes for Republicans - that's an important distinction to be made and one that's glossed over. Just as all democrats don't support Biden not all Republicans are Trump supporters.
Trump is claiming that he won. Yes, that's false. HOWEVER, those people who support him are subject to writing and social media that is equal and opposite to the sort of article that the OP wrote. The problem is one of 'what constitutes truth' in a post-modern world, its about demagoguery on both sides - and insisting that the other side must be wrong wthout attempting to see it from their point of view.
For example, there are people on the left who called for the entire American police force to be defunded and thrown in the bin. Sure... it wasn't the mainstream Democrat position - but it was there. Why would anyone who is anxious about security ever vote democrat? And right wing demagogues used that - in the same way that the left wing hold up Trumpism as the de-facto position. It isn't.
You should be polite to lying scum on the grounds that you're trying to build a more tolerant world... and also, in some cases, they may not know that they are promoting falsehoods. In that instance, being someone who is polite and equitble means that you're far more likely to change their mind and not further entrench their person.
Morally empty and philosophically neutral are not the same. What you mean is that I don't share your moral view of the world. That's an assertion and an incorrect one. I'm left wing but generally follow stoicism as a way of engaging. Happy to take the compliment about my writing. Thanks.
And I would advise you to work on your reasoning rather than your passions.
You're working under the assumptions that Democrat or Republican is something that people ARE rather than something they vote for. This means you can ascribe a moral judgment to their being and not to their actions. If I tell you I support Man Utd, it doesn't mean I play on the team. Hell...I may not even have bought merchandise or supported them finanically in anyway. I might just support them because my parents did.
When you insist that people ARE something, you create 'us vs them' as a default position that allows you to write off 69 million voters as inherently evil with little to no actual thought. So I would suggest that you concentrate on what Republicans actually are. They are fathers, mothers, friends, sons, friends, family. They are complex people who choose a different way of voting than you - and there are many reasons why they might do that.
Some of those reasons might be financial, they might be fear, they might be that they haven't thought about it. Now go back and consider whch of us is more likely to be able to engage them in conversation and shift them from a positon of voting Republican to voting Democrat. You, with your moral high ground and go fuck yourself attitude, or me... open to the possibilty that they may say something of value that needs consideration.
The Republicn party (and Trump in particular) has painted the Democrats as a bunch of smug, angry, dangerous lefties who can't hold a civil discussion without resorting to being wildly offended and aggressive. Why bother to prove them right and play into their hands?
