Well, one of the reasons I've been talking about how maybe there should be an addition to the law addressing potential conflicts of interest and adult children is that I talk to a lot of actual republicans on facebook in local political groups.
One of the core principals of effective, persuasive communication is that, when you're positive you're overall right, you should always scour the opposite side's arguments for places where they at least kind of have a point. And as counter-intuitive as it is, you should spend some time validating them on those thing. It's a necessary step to getting them to open their mind to what you think and why, so they can become curious about if maybe you are right on something.
The average Republican right now really, actually believes the only reason Trump called the prez of Ukraine to ask him to investigate Biden is because surely there was something illegal about Joe Biden firing the guy who was investigating his son's boss. Showing them that, nope, even if Joe had done that to protect Hunter, it would have been sleazy, but legal (and it really does seem crazy that it would have been legal,) is a crucial part of demonstrating that "investigating corruption" is obviously just a pretense, a demonstrably false pretense, for acquiring anti-Biden headlines and potential opposition research material (which is a foreign contribution).
Then you show them that there was a strong international consensus that Sorkin needed to be removed, and that Joe was actually throwing his son under the bus, if anything, by getting the guy fired. So that whole line of argument is even more fallacious.
This is what's been kinda working for me. YMMV. I have a few of them transitioned from convinced the impeachment is obviously a "sham," to having at least now read the Ukraine transcript, and curious to see what Trump's counter-arguments will be.
