Comment: Be careful. It might have only worked in that one case.

(See in situ)

In reply to comment: Ouch. That could have (see in situ)

Be careful. It might have only worked in that one case.

You've been warned!

Note though, it wasn't so clear and dry. There was a "repeat" a while later. But I held my ground, and reiterated that I clearly interpreted their voting based on their own admitted ignorance wasn't doing me or my siblings and other family members any favors. We "reconciled" ('cause I think they were initially quite pissed off) and they finally agreed and saw it my way, fessed up to their error, and began to change their behavior. They even tell ME about news items they are catching they never caught before!! (I don't watch MSM, they do, so I rely on them to keep me informed as well, at least to what the MSM propaganda mouthpieces are spewing) And the best part, is they are starting to read between the lines.

I also in our "reconciliation" talk, explained to them that what they mistook for their own ignorance, was merely lack of confidence in their own judgement. (unfortunately, and I know I'll get skewered for this, a trait very common to women in my personal experience - they defer to men all too often.)

I made it clear to them that their judgement was most likely correct. Their gut was accurately warning them the politicians were full of it. They just didn't think they "knew" enough to argue otherwise.

Effectively, they were allowing themselves to be victims of a "confidence game."

I helped them to understand, it was in fact a "con game" and that if they trusted their own judgement and instincts more about world issues, just like they do about every day mundane stuff, then I'd trust them to make the right decisions in the voting booth. I made it clear, I trusted their judgement in other things. What I was upset about was they weren't using it for the more important, long range, bigger picture.

(see what I did there?)