Few greater exercises in futility can be found than political conversations. Right now, on the website you're using, a rapid accumulation of views does little in pacifying the innate political leanings of people. However, this does little in persuasion, as we'll see below.
To bolster this conception with evidence, a study of 2,355 twins found that when it came to voting Conservative (or not), 57% of the variability could be accounted for by genetics alone. UKIP, Labor and the Greens party votes were genetically accounted for by 50% (https://theconversation.com/do-our-genes-tell-us-how-to-vote-study-of-twins-says-they-might-40038).
This genetic expression in voting patterns is also expressed in analysis of Conservative Blacks. Despite being Conservative, Black people *overwhelmingly* voted for the Obama, the Black Democrat candidate (at a nigh 100% rate).
Observing other American data, we can see that *all* listed races (White, Black, Asian and Hispanic) said that race was the most important factor, in regards to a personal identifier. The kicker: this thrashed American nationality and political ideology (http://anepigone.blogspot.com/2017/11/color-trumps-ideology.html).
Not only do genetics provide innate political boundaries within people (i.e. no amount of dialogue, statistics or rhetoric will convince them otherwise), but the ones who are convinced are, the majority of the time, persuaded by an innate, racial tribalism. Hence, the Tabula Rasa conception of trying to convince people with logical arguments, is unreality.
If humanity is interested in progressing, it needs to find ways to overcome the fatalistic genetic component politics.
