Ok. I would really like to start making more calls to my "representatives" however,

[amyrose2712]

I have a slight anxiety issue and a confidence problem. Can someone give me some advice on how to make my points concise and clear. I know I am not asking about any issue in particular. Just some advice on how to formulate my thoughts. I think I am afraid that I may not be knowledgeable enough about the topic. I think maybe I am nervous about responding to any of their responses, and not having an articulate answer. I guess I am nervous that I will not help, but hurt the cause with my lack of depth of knowledge. (But then I watch Washington Journal, listen to those callers and then I feel a little better.)

Edited because I can't spell.

[RandomThoughts]

1. There is a couple programming techniques that can help formulation of thougths.

Top down development is always a good method, while using encapsulation of component ideas.

Start with a basic concept of what is best in your view or what you want to accomplish.

Then find the different parts required to do that, and break them into small parts that are contained with as few interconnections with other things, and think on those things as best you can, while noting anything that could have effects outside that object. Those things are interfaces to other objects.

So if you are talking about economics with someone, don't bounce around between huge areas of ideas of economics, start with the basic philosophical goals, and what is best. And most times that is actually the area that people disagree on, even if they don't admit it.

Then find sections and subsections within that, like unemployment and jobs, think on concepts of how jobs are created without diverging into NAFTA, and immigration. But note that there are interfaces there. Or when talking about trade, again start with a top level goal, and try to find effects and how actions can influence the decisions on things like tariffs and free trade.


But honestly, and I don't know if many people know this, much of the lower level details really don't matter in discussions because the two sides never resolve the issue of the higher level goals.

For example, If someone believes people need to suffer to weed out undesirables, and another person thinks on helping people in difficult situations, the details will never coincide since the basic concepts of intent and goals are different.

And that is much of the difference in views, although if you are talking with your own group you can many times reach same ideas and move into the detail components.


So for example, If the goal is to create jobs, you first have to agree that creating jobs is a good thing. It is possible some might not want that either for politics, or for survival of the fittest thinning out populations. If they disagree, then you have to go through all the conversations on ideas of some people thinking in terms of being special, and should it be also about many people or just ones self. If you can get past that then you can have a discussion on jobs.

What happens many times is people skip the top level and try to discuss jobs while one side is trying to make money for a few people, and another side is trying to help many people, making it not much of a conversation.

There are also some top level thoughts on if it is good to increase jobs in third world countries or at home, that can cause issues on discussions of outsourcing, but again top level goal is important since some just like outsourcing for profit and use the excuse that it helps other to rationalize that top level idea of profit first. So again, you have to work through what the intent of the action is.

But if you do agree, you can then go to component like 'demand' and think on how demand is created, and how demand effects need for jobs. And components like how different methods of job creations effects peoples views and happiness, and areas of where job creation can add to other components of society(interfaces) like green jobs or education jobs.

Anyways that is what I try to do when I actually spend time thinking on topics.

[amyrose2712]

2. Thanks. That helps. But let me ask you this,

when calling my "reps" and such, will I have to debate or do I just state what I called to say? I know these questions seem silly and probably I already know the answers, but I am one of those that needs validation of what I think I already know. Thanks again.

[RandomThoughts]

3. I have never talked with a representative

Or at least not with knowing I was.

So not sure what a conversation would be like.

I just post here, and talk to people at parks and bars when I have beer money.

:shrug:

So not sure, probably depends on the person.

[Brickbat]

8. I responded below, and just saw your question. The vast majority of the time, there's no reason to

debate. The staffer isn't there to debate and is probably told not to. Say your piece, thank them, and you're done. And if worst comes to worst and you're calling Mitch McConnell's office for whatever reason and the person gets all belligerent, you can always just hang up. :p

[Rabrrrrrr]

4. My experience of calling the politicians is that an intern or someone answers the phone,

offers you a chance to say what you want to say, gets your name and address, and says "I'll pass this on to (whoever)". I've never had them ask me questions or engage in debate or anything else.

Others might have a different experience, but that's all that's ever happened to me when calling in support of (or against) an issue or particular bill.

[activa8tr]

5. I think an email, a real snail mail letter, or a personal visit to their local

"office hours" is about the best you can do.

In an email, stick to one or at most two issues, one or two paragraphs for each. Make it simple and clear what your position is and what you approve of or disapprove of. COMPLIMENT the Rep or Senator for his/her good stuff, too.

If visiting during local "office hours", bring a one page written statement to leave in case you don't get to meet with the Rep or Senator, (highly unlikely you will actually MEET with a Senator, Reps are accessible in local offices at least a few times a year).
When meeting with the Rep, tell him/her where you live, and what your issues are...NO MORE THAN THREE PER VISIT, but PREFERABLY ONE ISSUE, otherwise they forget what you said.

Phone calls to DC offices should be limited to the few days before a crucial vote, and should be just a few sentences at most, like,
"I'd like to ask the Rep/Senator to vote for/against bill such and such", mentioning what the bill is about, because bill numbers can change or be put into other bills and you want the Rep/Senator to know what issue you are talking about and where you stand.

Trying to debate a Rep or Senator is NEVER a good idea. They know more about debate than most of us, and they don't EVER want to lose a debate. Just state your positions, and leave it at that.

Hope this helps.

[Liberal In Texas]

6. Go buy a book of stamps and write real letters.

You'll have time to hammer out exactly what you want to say and written letters have at least 10 times more weight with them than phone calls or email.

Remember to keep it short. It'll have more chance of being read.

[Brickbat]

7. Letters are better, but whenever I call a rep/senator's office, I just say my one sentence and then

say, "I just wanted to register my dis/approval." The staffer isn't there to argue, especially if s/he is getting a lot of calls about it. So it generally goes like this:

"Senator Franken's office."

"Hi there. I'm a constituent and just wanted to let Senator Franken know that I'm extremely unhappy with the decision to not extend unemployment benefits, and I hope something can be done. That's all, I just wanted to call and let the senator know at least one of his constituents is annoyed about that."

"OK, thanks."

"Thanks for your time!"

And that's it.

[amyrose2712]

9. Thank you...

that is basically what I was looking for. I really tend to over think things.