How to Argue With a Lefty About Trump.

Don’t.

(Inspired by actual events)

Staunch Trump haters will often start a conversation— a cross-examination, more accurately— with you, hapless Trumpanzie, essentially demanding an explanation for how you can be so stupid.

This can be couched in a version of the classic gotcha’ question: “Do you still beat your wife?” There are only two answers to this query:

1. “Yes, I still beat her.” and

2. “No, I finally stopped.”

The excited lefty will start with some variant of this:

“How could you vote for a sexist, racist, homophobic, convicted rapist who is guilty of four hundred and seventy-three felonies?”

Or, in other words, “Why are you an irredeemable dumbfuck?”

You could counter by asking “Why did you vote for a vacuous, incoherent, babbling drunken whore?” But this will not work. Only Trump’s, and your, shortcomings are on the docket. Don’t answer.

After becoming quite agitated and frustrated at your insolence, some will demand to know why you won’t “defend” your decision. Here’s the answer: “Because I am not a defendant, counselor.”

Another tack is, “If we can’t talk about this, how do we solve the problem?” What problem? My guy’s in, doing exactly what I elected him to do, and he’s killing it.

Lefties seem to feel entitled to an explanation for your decision-making, while simultaneously assuming that they require none from themselves, because they are so obviously right.

Here’s the root cause (lefties love looking for root causes) of the problem communicating across party lines:

There is not a single fact, much less a body of them, that you and a lefty can agree upon to start a conversation about Orange Man. None. That’s why it can’t happen.

When someone poses a question that includes one or more assertions as fact, that forces you to debate whether the embedded assumptions are accurate or not— rather than discussing the question at hand.

These inquisitors, if they are friends or family members, are actually trying to understand how they can like you as the person you are in other respects, and yet you can be that stupid. In other words, they are baffled that you can appear to be an interesting, funny, cogent, and thinking person— as they see themselves— and still believe this shit. (See: “But you’re so interesting and funny.” here.)

If you agree with any premise held out by an agitated leftist, you have lost the argument from the get-go. The only choice is not to engage. This will render them helplessly apoplectic, but there’s nothing you can do to prevent it.

Your only hope is that the lefty will eventually be exposed to credible contradictory information and realize he’s (she’s? they’s) been lied to about just about everything related to Orange Man.

Mainstream media and left-wing pundits have all read from the same script, creating the illusion that there is “consensus” about this assertion or that hoax. It’s called information laundering, and it works by having information— maybe true, maybe false— repeated so often by so many sources that it is eventually regarded as fact.

For some reason, left-leaning thinkers seem to regard consensus as fact, as seen with the pandemic, the laptop hoax, the Russian spy hoax, and the 97 percent of scientists agreeing with one another that they indeed call themselves scientists. A staggering degree of trust in mainstream information sources seems to render the sufferer incapable of experiencing skepticism. They believe whatever they are told.

Many Conservatives are steeped in skepticism about information, including that from right-leaning sources, and want to see the proof— the “sauce,” as they call it.

Everyone is spinning due to motivations that have nothing to do with informing the public.

If you want to know what’s really going on around you, turn off the audio, and use your eyes. Don’t automatically accept claims made even by “trusted sources.”

And don’t argue with leftists.