> > It didn't get me anywhere.

> Where were you trying to get to?

Does that really matter when the distance traveled is zero?

You said earlier:

> You engage by not going in with the intent to change a person's mind. Instead, you go in with the intent to understand their position.

Having done the latter (I was in the very same position only a few years ago), I was trying to do the former.

> What qualifies (to each of them) as "socialism"? What kind of "destruction" will befall the country, and when? It sounds like they want to protect something. What is that something? Why is it important to them?

Anything that can be labeled Socialism. Single payer healthcare. Higher taxes for anyone, including billionaires. Minimum wage.

> What kind of "destruction" will befall the country, and when?

It doesn't really get less vague than that. This is where belief in a cult's narrative gets abused by the right-wing political narrative. For Mormons, it's the "Second Coming of Jesus Christ".

There is actually a significant intersection with the right-wing political narrative and the Mormon one. His name was Ezra Taft Benson. He was Eisenhower's Secretary of Agriculture, then the President of and Prophet for The LDS Church. He preached that God himself was against communism and socialism. He called the Civil Rights movement a "Tool of Communist Deception".

> It sounds like they want to protect something. What is that something?

The status quo. The world as a reflection of their ideology. Their delusion. The Republican Party. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

> Why is it important to them?

Cults demand importance. They are told constantly that if the world doesn't reflect their ideology that society will literally fall apart. They are taught in Mormonism that all throughout history, God himself felled cities like Sodom and Gomorrah because the people became "prideful and immoral" and refused to listen to the warning of Prophets. They are told by right-wing talking heads like Rush Limbaugh, Tucker Carlson, Glen Beck, etc. that our society is losing its moral footing, and that anyone who thinks differently is stupid and malignant.

> > [Stuff about cults]

> Cults are a terrible thing, no argument here.

The stuff about cults is vitally important. It informs a pattern of thinking that is open to abuse. That is the root of the problem here. The stuff about cults cannot be separated from the rest.

> > There are no underlying facts.

> Of course there are, you've stated some of them here. I don't means the "facts" of rhetoric, I mean the facts about their lives.

What these people believe to be facts about their lives have no basis in reality. The very foundation of these alleged facts is rhetoric.

> > Conservatism has become a deep-rooted part of their personal ideology.

> Why? This is a question whose answer can, and will vary subtly from individual to individual. People aren't robots, and beliefs don't have an off switch. A dozen people can believe the same thing for different reasons and to different degrees. Others will say they believe something, while actually only believing that they should say they do for some other, unsaid reason. Yet others still will think they believe something, but certain experiences might unmask the cognitive dissonance within.

Why? Because they are in a cult. Their personal ideology has literally been replaced by external narratives. They do differ on small details (rejecting what they personally know to be false), but the greater picture is always the same.

> People are complicated bundles of personal history, not mannequins with an R or D sticker on them.

Well, that's how it should be. Unfortunately, many are convinced that being a mannequin with an R next to their name makes them an excellent political candidate, and that anyone with a D next to their name is an evil socialist actively destroying our society. Does it make sense? No. It's not about sense. It's about keeping everything in line with the ideological and cult narratives.