“The first thing for me was he didn’t release the Epstein files. They’re even acting like they didn’t exist,” he said, before moving on to his other grievances. “And, of course, they’re sending Israel and Ukraine all of our tax dollars just like the numb-nuts before him did. Putting America last, and now he’s blaming the beef farmers for the price of beef.”
Mitchell added, “Hey, I’m not biased, man. He talked a good game; he tricked me. I was fooled. I admit it.”
“Yeah, I do think that Donald Trump is that beast of Revelation 13:3.”
Honestly I don’t have any resources really and I think it’s only possible with people you spend a lot of time with.
My method has been quite simple really and I’ll tend to ask questions, to which I know the answers but I know they won’t have any clue.
Example: Lots of anti asylum seeker rhetoric in my country right now. So the first thing I ask is how does one apply for asylum in the UK on boats.
Now I’ve never met anybody on the right able to answer this. So I’ll show them the government site which clearly states to apply for asylum you need to be in the UK.
Then I can frame this as well doesn’t it seem like a manufactured problem that we could solve by letting people make applications before they arrive here.
That’s just a quick example, but the gist has been really to be fucking relentless and not let anything slide without being challenged. After a while you’ll notice these people first come to you for an opinion, which id argue is thinking critically. Then you’ll see them thinking about things themselves rather than asking me.
Now I say be relentless, but you have to read the room and let things slide sometimes otherwise you’ll become insufferable and might hurt the cause, but I’ve found that once you can show some inconsistencies in the right wing rhetoric they’ll be more receptive to learning more and more.