🤡 When Don Lemon tried to push his divisive rhetoric but got owned by a random man in the street. Say NO to #wokeism 🤡

Hmmm…

Pretty much.

Funny how they call us Nazis and in the same breath they’ll say this shit.

😭🤯

👂👂

Put this man on a watch list ASAP!

God, marriage, family. In that order.

It was bigger than Charlie Kirk. It’s about the movement and carrying the torch.

If you watch Charlie Kirk’s debates, there’s something you’ll see in almost all of them. It’s easy to miss until it’s pointed out to you, but once you’re aware, you’ll notice every time. Here’s the pattern I’ve observed: 1. His first mission is to establish clarity. - Asks his opponent to state their argument - Asks them to define terms - If they struggle with either, he offers one to them and asks if it’s FAIR 2. His second (and most important) mission is to find something, no matter how small, on which he can say the magical phrase: “I AGREE” Human beings WANT to be agreed with. It’s a fundamental drive. It establishes rapport, and helps us feel acknowledged and humanized. Saying “I agree” or “we agree” lowers defenses. Which is THE KEY. Because once defenses go up, communication stops. Charlie knew this, and it was one of his biggest strengths and secret weapons. But he never said it insincerely. That’s why his first step was CLARIFICATION. In order to find a sincere point of agreement, you have to understand what the other person is trying to say. This is a known debate tactic. But even though many skilled debaters use it, few wield it in quite the same way as he did. Why? Because Charlie wasn’t trying to just WIN. He was trying to CONVINCE. He wanted the person across from him to end up BESIDE him. Humiliation wasn’t the goal. Because a person who is simply humiliated or defeated either doubles down or shuts down and walks away. Which is why, if you watch, you’ll see how intently Charlie hunts for the moment he can say “I AGREE”… usually even before he begins his counterattack. He lights up with excitement every time he finds it. Because he knew that once their perspective was entirely dismantled, they’d find themselves floating in a sea of uncertainty… and he wanted them to have a life ring to hold onto. One that was tethered to reason, truth, and a person with whom they knew they could AGREE. Even if only about something small. It’s how he managed to never close the door on someone. It’s how he so beautifully built connection during—and even THROUGH—argument. And it’s something I think we should all notice and study, when we watch him, so that we can do it too. Real winning is about keeping the focus on what you’re fighting FOR, rather than who you’re fighting against. Charlie knew that. It’s become my favorite thing to look for in his debates. And, the more I see it… the more I feel like it’s the real key to carrying on his legacy, and picking up his mic.