I suppose this could apply to both left and right wingers but was at dinner with two RINOS and got cornered about a few topics, specifically why I will go nowhere near the vaccine (easier), election fraud (little more difficult), and why my sources are credible (most difficult). Thought I did a good job on defense given that there was little I could do in persuading two narrow-minded pals anything I was saying was reasonable. They gave me no chance. But I'm wondering what many of you do in this type of situation, what seems to work better than other things, etc.
I do think we are close to some bigger news, although I worry the only way it will truthfully get to us will be through EAS. Regardless, I do trust the plan and plan on holding the damn line for as long as I possibly can. WWG1WGA.
Vaccine = The theory behind a vaccine is that you get injected with a small sample of a known virus, your body produces antigens in response, and that protects you from getting sick if you get the actual full virus. Problems: vaccines include a lot more things within that can cause serious illness, and the covid vaccine does NOT have the virus (because it has never been isolated AND purified, so nothing exists to put in it) ... SO ... they have INSTEAD come up with a new concept that is (for lack of better term) a GMO substitute that they THINK will produce the antigens. It has NOT been tested in any meaningful way, there is no proof it is safe, and several people have gotten very sick and some died shortly after taking it. Why would you take such a dangerous chance on your health?
Election Fraud = The vote count was stopped at the same time in multiple states, and then SECRETLY re-started in the middle of the night while AT THE SAME TIME thousands of votes ONLY for Biden were inserted into the system. In addition, several states violated their own voting laws, making many of the votes counted fraudulent. You are either FOR the rule of law, or you are AGAINST the rule of law. Which is it?
Sources = What are "valid" sources? Fox, who called the Arizona election with 1% of the vote in, and then later was forced to change their stance? News outlets run by neocons? CNN? MSDNC?
Most likely, you are talking to low information voters who think they have information they don't actually have. Bury them with info. You probably did that, which is why they resort to questioning your "sauce."
Look up these logical fallacies: Appeal to Authority and Ad Hominem. These guys are thowing a heavy dose of both at you -- and that means they have no real argument. They are acting on emotion, not logic.
Excellent. They actually called me out for watching Fox, which I then assured them I stopped watching Fox after the election night when they called AZ so early and went downhill fast after that. I told them six entities own all media outlets, who is in bed with X, Y, and Z, while Z's family member is also in bed with Y's sister. The election fraud one makes no sense on how you can seriously overlook. Gross negligence at best.
You said they are RINOs. What "source" do they consider credible?
Any MSM. They just think Fox leans right and CNN/MSNBC/NPR lean left.
Truly disappointing. They were confused on why I was done with Fox.
Did you show them this video?
https://media.gab.com/system/media_attachments/files/064/464/071/original/e9e8e1849b1c4e85.mp4
Or this video about media infiltration:
https://www.dailymotion.com/video/x2pzqf2?syndication=273844
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Mockingbird
Show them these, and then ask them why they believe government propaganda is legitimate news.
Do NOT let them off the hook to answer that question. They will try to weasle out of it, but ask them: WHY DO YOU BELIEVE GOVERNMENT PROPAGANDA?
Do not accept a non-answer. Even if they change the subject, it will make them think (later).
Scary times to say the least