I’m sorry but at the root of the problem is the lack of education that allowed those folks, his backers, to get him elected. At their core they are not smart. Not smart enough to know when someone is lying to their face, …and that isn’t book smarts. That takes a deeper level of contemplation than wrote memorization of math rules or poems for English class! Those folks don’t have the capacity, and that is exactly how the republicans want them.
Your point is accurate, that honing in on their poor grammatical or spelling capacity doesn’t make inroads with them, and that ad hominem attacks are counter productive at converting someone to your side in an argument. However, my point is that one in such a situation should seriously consider wasting their time further in conversing with the challenged person.
Case in point: Listening to NPR lately has become such a chore because of their excessive use of improper grammar. It doesn’t inform the listener or improve their story when they: “so-and-so, he…” or “so-and-so, she…” and it indicates a lack of rigor, as do the spelling mistakes. (Assuming they’re not created by fat fingers on the infernally tiny smart phone keyboards, or by the stupid phones themselves thinking they know what word we meant better than we the authors and go changing it, …much to our surprise, after posting!).
A lack of rigor in communication, and by extension, …in thought. The interviewers never ask the really difficult questions that being better informed would enable. They don’t exercise the rigor to seek out the progressive position and the idiotic regressive position. They allow opinion to be spoken unchallenged. My indictment is that they never seem to have a command of any subject enough to challenge statements made by their interviewees.