I can’t help though, about thinking of the teaching a pig to sing meme – It wastes your time and annoys the pig.
Well, that’s a reasonable point of view. But I was implying----while very conscious of the length of that post!—that while arguing with Trumpists might not be productive, there are other things we can do. (Voting, and making clear to those trying to restrict voting that they will pay an economic price for their efforts, for example.)
Overall my message could fairly be summed up as: those people are just not right in the head, and we shouldn’t break our hearts over it.
I suppose that’s a condescending attitude to take to them. (But is it an unjustified condescending attitude?)
If you are forced to confront a trumpist, ask him (or her) if (s)he thinks that utter idiocy can be healed.
If (s)he answers yes, ask him (or her) why (s)he is not in therapy yet.
If (s)he answers no, tell him (or her) that this shows that talking to him (or her) makes no sense whatsoever.
Whatever the answer was, this is the right moment to put on a sad face and walk slowly away. Do not engage in any discussion beyond this.
I totally agree with the advice that in general, the best approach is to not even try. Just walk away.
A different approach has been worked out with a very good friend of mine. We have known each other our whole adult lives and somehow get along famously whenever he comes to visit, despite him being a far-right ideologue, because he’s otherwise a very kind and generous person. The way it generally works is that he’ll come up with some right-wing talking point, seemingly just to rile me up. I’ll explain why his point is totally wrong and only an idiot could possibly believe it, backing it up with actual facts, and that therefore he must be a fucking idiot. We then have a couple of drinks and discuss where to go out for dinner, which is usually a nice restaurant where we’re not inclined to discuss politics. It’s kind of amazing. He was best man at my wedding, and I was at his. Maybe there’s hope for mankind yet.
Beau of the Fifth Column has an answer for that. One is to stay focused on small things where you can hope to change minds, and not get caught up in the big picture
The other is about arguing with people who didn’t reason themselves into their opinion. In that case, you need to set things up where they want to argue against their position. He gives examples:
Beau is very much against the “give up on them” mentality, though he won’t debate people arguing in bad faith.
Actually, I want a tee shirt that says (in large letters):
JESUS SAVES
TRUMP CAN’T
and wear it to church.
(aren’t I naughty?)
I used to belong to a debate group on facebook.
I’ll admit, 90% of it was one side snarking the other. A lot of which was funny regardless of which side was being made fun of.
And there was 10% good, reality based debate.
Then Trump stepped into the picture. And completely sucked all the fun out of that debate group.
The snarks became mean and nasty. And the debates we’re no longer based in reality.
At some point you can just use they/their 
Whilst I do think that’s a reasonable interpretation of the statistical likelihood of such an argument succeeding, I don’t think it’s strictly true.
You can’t use logic or rational arguments to talk to someone who doesn’t care at all about those things, but there are people who may not be entirely opposed to logic and facts, but for one reason or another, happens to hold some irrational ideas in their head.
Lots of people have a head full of cherished nonsense, and absolutely no interest in thinking carefully about it or comparing it to tangible reality; those people are probably impervious to reasoned argument. Not everyone is like that though.
The problem is that the people who aren’t like that have either already abandoned Trumpism or are sticking with it not because they personally believe it but because they benefit financially.
Yeah, in that context, you might be right - the stakes are sufficiently high that nobody is really just idling along with a dumb idea in a cobwebby corner of their head
I totally agree with the many who have said, “don’t bother, you won’t convince them.” I went thru all 4 years of the Trump presidency without arguing about Trump, even with the Trumpers I know. I’m pretty good at shutting down conversations in polite company when they stray into sex, religion, or politics. I only started this thread in case I’m pulled into such an argument. I don’t want to feel I should slink away if a Trumper is browbeating someone.
I also don’t see such arguments as totally pointless. While I may never convince the Trumper that they’re wrong, I’d expect there might be others involved in the conversation whose opinions are not so set in stone.
solost: You’re grounded! Go to to your room.
Nah, he’s 18 now so it’s more like “get a job and move out already!” 
Yeah, it’s tough age. Can’t ground 'em. Can’t drown 'em in a bath tub.
There are two tactics for educating Trumpers.
Neither one works.
If people knew of methods using nothing but rhetoric to change strongly held ideological or religious views I’m sure they’d be widely employed. It’s doubtful such secret methods exist. The best you can hope for is to build rapport and, over time, be another source of information.
The trend, however, is self segregation into ideological homogeneous enclaves. Virtual or otherwise.
Yeah, but that’s just fake news.
You will get back that Trump strengthened our military, and showed the rest of the world who’s boss. Trump built the wall!
The problem is that you cannot persuade a Trumper through any facts that they disagree with. The only facts that they will acknowledge are those that align with their worldview.
It’s tough because the people in that bubble trust exactly the wrong people. They will say they only trust Tucker Carlson, Trump, maybe some of the more intellectual types will say Jordan Peterson (yeah, I know).
And I think, at a subconscious level, perhaps they know that if they doubt even one talking point they’ve been fed, the whole thing will come crashing down. Because it’s all based on trust, or at least not questioning anything that feeds the desired narrative.
In terms of the OP, the closest I can get to progress is when they inevitably do a “tu quoque” or whatabout. And then, even though the thing that the “liberals” supposedly did is usually bullshit, I play along and say “Yeah that is bad” but then suggest that it’s their turn to admit that what the GOP said / did was bad too.
It doesn’t always work – hardcore trumpists will never criticize Trump, even if it’s following their own train of logic – but it can work. When it does work, I leave it there; hopefully that one sliver of doubt will give them pause for thought going forwards.
It’s a bit like arguing with a creationist by citing geology, archaeology, and astrophysics. Even if they can be persuaded to accept a certain bit of evidence, the overall worldview is impervious to this new information. I’ve heard creationists make the argument, “God created the world already old.” Once you accept an omnipotent being, no facts can possibly undermine it.