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

[Dill]

(05-07-2019, 12:26 PM)bfine32 Wrote: 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

Wow.  Talk about white noise.

In my posts, the bolding marks logical emphases, like conclusions and general statements, from support. If you don't see the logical relations between statements, I suppose every statement in an argument seems (falsely) equivalent, and the bolding random.

If premise, conclusions and other support seem equivalent, then you cannot follow (or make) and argument. In that logical flatland, arguments with support seem no different than arguments without support,  Hillary no better than Trump.
.........................................................................................................................................................................................

You state that Trump critics are motivated by hate, not by Trump's behavior.  They "slur" him.

That locates the flaw in the critic, not in Trump and his behavior. 

I have asked you how deflecting your criticism from Trump to his critics is not defending Trump.
Your response seems to be there are silent others out there who "see" you are not defending him.

Easy to make your case if you just explain why someone pointing out a Trump lie is just "slurring" Trump even when the lie is actually a lie.

Two different people have explained to you that all "immoral acts" are not equally immoral (lol killing Vince Foster or running a child trafficking ring out of a pizza parlor would be more immoral than cheating on three successive wives, wouldn't it?); that's why all violations of the law are not punished equally.  That is why Hillary is not as immoral as Trump, once one starts comparing apples to apples, lies to lies, scandal to scandal.

But you won't go there, because stopping at "immoral equivalence" is the only way to defend someone like Trump.  Only then are his opponents are just as bad.