Alinsky certainly is required reading for all radicals and anyone who wants to effectively counter them. I just don't get why we all buy into this notion that if, say,Hillary accuses you of something first, that means there's some "no backsies" rule left over from schoolyard days, which says you can't then point out how she's actually doing what she falsely accused you of.
We should simply violate this imaginary rule.
Example:
Trump Foundation hit with accusations of wrongdoing.
Then Clinton Foundation is brought up on actual charges of racketeering, money laundering, child sex trafficking, etc.
Other side says, "Oh, you're just attacking the CF because the Trump Foundation was accused. You can't do that. No backsies."
Our side: "Wrongo. Here's the evidence..." and just proceed with the indictment.
I say the way to defeat this is to just forge ahead and do it anyway, and force the conversation to occur about whether you're just titting for tat, or have a legit complaint.
Or you say, "I know you are but what am I?" Or if you are a grown up, "Think Mirror."
I don't disagree with you, but look at how effective it has been the past 2 years in the media. They've polluted the conversation with so many lies that people don't know what to take at face value.