So... who wrote the NYT op-ed?

[Dill]

(09-11-2018, 06:40 PM)bfine32 Wrote: First, because I once took an oath.

Secondly, it is to point out that fallacy employed by those that constantly criticize Trump by engaging in the same tactics he employs. The Left hates that Trump hates so they reciprocate with guess what.....Hate.

As to being ill-fitted for POTUS, I will and have said many of his actions are below the Office, but all I can do is cast my vote and make the most of the situation. If I want to try to illustrate the hate espoused by some; so be it. There are great many that feel he is perfectly suited for POTUS; what makes their opinion less than mine? I was equally aloof while Obama was in Command; although, I disagreed with a great many of his choices. I can only think of about 5-6 time I overtly criticized him in his 8 years. Some do that with Trump in one day and vilified O'Riely, Limbaugh, and others for questioning Obama. Life's too short to be filled with such venom.

For instance this very thread has turned from who opined the NYT article to excusing Obama for conduct that is beneath the office simply because Trump is beneath the office.

You are not a serving officer. What "oath" could prevent you from exercising your civic responsibility to hold government officials accountable to their electorate?

A few comments.

1. You are not pointing out any "fallacy." To demonstrate a fallacy you have to show how the conclusion of an argument does not follow from its premises, that the logical relations it presents are invalid.  People offer very specific reasons for concern about Trump's suitability for office that go far beyond his incivility. Those are premises from which certain negative consequences could reasonably be expected to follow. Rather than demonstrate why those premises are false or negative consequences should not follow from them, you simply ignore these specifics and assert broad generalities about "hate," "choices," and "tactics."  And suddenly, the specific and unprecedented nature of Trump's misdeeds disappears as "both sides" are just hating and using the same tactics--as if Obama were daily tweeting out nasty comments about womens looks and calling the press "enemy of the people"; as if George Bush too had publicly insulted and threatended his cabinet members; and as if John McCain had a history of using the legal system to harass critics and required a "fixer" to clean up his messes; as if Hillary Clinton had marched Trump accusers into the presidential debates. 

2. You are not "illustrating" hate when you ignore the quality and quantity of evidence arguing against Trump's fitness for office. You are exemplifying denial. You disagreed with some of Obama's choices and others disagree with some of Trump's--like his decision to take Putin's word over his own intelligence services and to spill classified intel to Russian diplomats in an unsecured Oval Office.  So if people criticize Trump 5-6 times in a day, the only reason can be "venom," not that his chaotic White House actually produces 5-6 cringeworthy news items per day because of Trump's "choices" while Obama's did not. To repeat--you simply disconnect critique from evidence, then find no difference between criticism of Obama and criticism of Trump--except Trump gets more. 

3. "There are great many that feel he is perfectly suited for POTUS; what makes their opinion less than mine?"  Do you have any interest at all in examining the ground of these pro-Trump feelings or opinions, or is the fact of their existence enough in itself to balance the argument he is unfit?   Why shouldn't ungrounded "opinions" be less valued than grounded, or is it unfair to suppose some better than others because they are formed with more care for logic and evidence?