Long, long sigh. That picture/dialogue that you describe is quite common. I will try to answer it as shortly as I can not to bore you (and others) to death.
Yes, it was time for a change. And change is generally good.However, there were 13 different candidates, and from those 13, 4 of them were completely opposition, open, declared and very antagonistic to the party that was in place from 2002 to 2016 (impeachment year). 2 were less critical but still open opposition, 2 were even more to the left (real hard core left), 2 very small and already folkloric, 1 completely crazy (really). The other two were Bolsonaro himself and the guy from the ousted party, PT.
The four I mentioned first were from structured parties and were known to the public. So there were other possible changes. Now Bolsonaro is no Trump, he does not come from the "outside". He is professional politician. 2 from those 4 I mentioned above are waaaay much outsiders than him. The "time for a change" argument is simply empty, to say the least.
Then there is corruption argument. This is completely and utterly crazy. The only factual reason to believe that Bolsonaro would fight corruption is his own word. Which is exactly what every politician in the world does. But he has this "though guy" rhetoric, not backed up by facts. His possessions grew in a way not compatible to his earnings. All his sons, that got into politics, done the same, one case is well known to the public, the growth is exponential. Those are open, public, and specially, uncontested data (you know me, I checked the source). The only reason that they are not multi-millionaires (at least apparently) is that they until very little time ago they were marginal figures with no access to large sums. If you consider what they had access to, their appetite is at least on the average of your basic corrupt politician. In fact, the figures which one of his sons is being asked to explain (with zero success) are larger than the specific ones ultimately responsible for Lula's arrest (which I consider correct, if the info I have is sound). Bolsonaro and his sons are deeply connected to the Rio de Janeiro militias, they even have open and known bills to pardon and legalize those militias (that kill and decapitate people at will, charge protection, etc and etc). Not to mention his recorded views on how politicians work (and he does not say it critically). Last but not least, there are direct connections between his sons and collaborators to the two identified (still only accused) killers of a Rio de Janeiro city counselor a year ago (Mariele Franco). This will ultimately lead to his impeachment (mark my words). At least 70% of what I wrote above was there for all to see before the election. The corruption argument only holds for those who desperately want to believe it.
Then there is the part I wanted to tackle all along. The "brushing aside" part. You see his supporters (and I bet this person was, and probably was simply ashamed to admit it) constantly brushing aside and shrugging of arguments, as they were minor or simply lies. The truth is that they don't give a shit. The guy spent 25 years saying all kinds of absurdities. There are loads of different collections, the most popular ones are not even my favorites. If you want just google translate
this page. (random choice). Most of this is caught on video or part of an published interview (never contested). Now their usual excuse is that he was taken "out of context". You guessed it, I checked. From all the cases I saw (more than 30), in only two you can say he was out context -- or was somewhat justifiable. One case is quite famous, his altercations with a far left congresswoman (a giant idiot, by the way). She called him a rapist (with zero evidence, actually out of a bill he was proposing to chemically castrate rapists), and he replied that she did not deserved to be raped by him. Idiotic and absurd answer sure but she started it with a strong accusation. Another one (barely cited nowadays), the journalist tricked him and changed the question asked afterwards, so the answer would look quite worst. The rest (which mount to hundreds) is simply factual truth. Ok, you can brushed it all aside. I only ask, what else a guy needs to say? I want to kill people out of their ideas, I wan t to kill and batter homosexuals, I miss used public money... what else does he needs to say? It is crazy.
I had another point, which is the people he brought to the government, but this is already way too long.
