The big problem is not Trump. It is "Trumpism"

[Dill]

(05-06-2019, 08:46 PM)bfine32 Wrote: We'll just let folks read and decide if there was any defense of Trump as I have been accused, but their silence is deafening. 

For the 3rd time. I'm not the one dismissing anything. But your doubling. tripling down on the assertion says more than I ever could. 

You want to make yourself feel superior to those that differ in your opinion hence the ridiculous "prize morale character". I "jumped into" a thread about voter's motivation to talk about voter's motivation. You chose to make it personal. Damn me for not just going with Trump. anyone associated to him, anyone that voted for him, or anyone who doesn't constantly slur him and those associated with him are beneath me mantra. 

Ha ha, let's see if anyone defends your defense of Trump. The silence is deafening.

Pointing out flaws in someone's argument by indicating logical inconsistencies and counterargument with evidence is the opposite of "making it personal."  No one who understands that would think criticism of Trump's bad behavior, based upon his actual bad behavior, is "slurring" him and just "hate." In your book, people who stick to evidence-based logically consistent arguments rather than speculation about opponents' motives do so to "feel superior." In effect, you have defined any criticism of your Fox facts or Trump's behavior as personal attack--whether true or not. Either you really don't see a relation between criticism and evidence and/or you are more comfortable treating statements as accusations, whether backed by evidence or not.

And yes, Trump critics DO prize "moral character" as a standard of presidential conduct.  But you call addressing Trump's moral and character flaws by presenting manifest evidence of them as simply "slurring" him, motivated by hate. Which is defending Trump.

And you apparently are tripling down on your insistence that no one who prizes moral character could see a difference between Trump and Hillary. Also defending Trump and Trump voters. You are right that my factually based assertion that Trump is far far more ethically challenged than Hillary "says more" than your asserted equivalence ever could. Separating Trump and Hillary from comparable evidence of their ethical behavior is the basis of your false equivalence.

You jumped into a thread about voter motivation to claim Trump voters were "no worse" in judgment than Hillary voters. Why isn't that "slurring" Hillary and Hillary voters by the standards you set for Trump's defense?