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

[*bfine32*]

(05-07-2019, 09:44 AM)Dill Wrote: 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?

I'm just kinda post random things and use the bold function periodically while not addressing the point the other person made. I do realize regardless how many times I assert you are defending those that voted for Trump, because their only other choice was flawed, and state that is a defense of Trump; is in no way logically sound. But just try and stop me

Perhaps if I use terms like jumping in when you provide your input into the discussion it and use bold font whenever I wrongly accuse you of defending Trump my lack of actually having a point will be lost in the white noise. Hell I'm even going to throw in the term false equivalency even those folks can see a comparison between the two candidates when you are equating each to acts that can be considered immoral.

I further realize you did not slur any voter as I have done but in some twist of logic I can make it seem you're suggesting no voter had an legitimate option that they could sit his/her morale compass by and bold defending Trump again may lead one or two to believe that's actaully what you've done. I can only hope the don't read too closely