An observation about GD and reactions to JK

[ginnyinWI]

I have been looking at some of the idiotic responses to the impeachment joke issue and I think I see a pattern.

What Kerry does is usually way "over the heads" of the average posters. And sometimes over our heads, too. But in here, we tend to react by trusting that he knows what he's doing, until later when we understand how it all fits into an overall strategy--we see the patterns and motives later.
But out there, many of the most negative people simply take each event on its face, and never look into it any deeper, never want to reserve judgement until they find out more, and never want to cut him any slack.
They make a knee-jerk assessment, calling JK an idiot, a DINO, or whatever name they think will make them look clever. Then they dismiss him entirely and say they will never support him again, etc.

But if we come to JK's defense and say something like, "wait and see", we look like blind, koolaid drinking followers. We don't have inside info that would prove it, and we can't make them trust JK as we do without writing them a book about what he's done in the past that gives us that faith in him. And even if we did, they still wouldn't believe us.

So what is the best way to argue? Or is it a pointless waste of time?