Trump's Axios interview

[Dill]

(08-07-2020, 05:55 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote:

Quote: Wrote:Your claims that Trumpism is dependent only on Trump's "presence" and that the Dem party poses a radical far left danger greater than four more years of Trump are at this point unsupportable. Their weakness has been laid out step by step, unanswered, in posts #45-46. Claiming I've made my point and you've made yours doesn't make this a "tie." 

Except they absolutely are supportable.  You just don't agree with it.  You have taken objective fact and drawn a conclusion.  I have done the same.  You think your position is superior, I find it fatuous.  You discount examples I have supplied out of hand and hold up your examples as paragons of truth.  As stated before we have been arguing about our opinions for several posts now and it serves no further purpose.  You think you've provided a superior argument and appear determined to continue until I fall to my knees in supplication.  It's not going to happen.  I disagree, completely, with your conclusion (especially as you still aren't actually addressing the point I'm making) and that

Then why don't you support them, instead of writing ALL arguments off as equally "opinions"?*

In which post did you go beyond a mere claim that Trumpism is only dependent upon Trump's presence?

The counter argument is that Trump's base wants what it wants independently of Trump, as I argued with multiple examples in posts #45-46. You could refute that counterargument by showing that the xenophobia and anti-globalism of the base were NOT there before Trump or offering some reason why they should disappear when he was gone and the alternative is once again "GOP normal." But you have not. Repeating "Because their support is only tied to his presence" just continues to beg the question.

I certainly have taken an "objective fact" and made an inference. More than one"objective fact" and more than one inference, in fact.  E.g.--

1. There is a "terrifying" far left minority element of the Dem party whose presidential nominee was trounced by Biden. That's a fact. And from it I conclude that the terrifying far left does not control or define the party. It is not what the bulk of voters chose.

You could refute this inference by showing that Biden did not win the Dem nomination, or only won by tiny margin, or that Dem voters didn't vote for the candidate they really wanted. Or that Biden is an AOC wolf in sheep's clothing None of which you have done.

Yet you conclude, to the contrary, that this terrifying "far left" is what the Dems are really all about, so much to fear that "gridlock" and another four years of Trump are reasonable alternatives. Warrant for this errant inference, though asked for, is never provided. It remains just a bald assertion. And that's why I "just don't agree."

2. There is a terrifying far right majority element of the Republican party whose presidential nominee trounced all his "normal" primary opponents.  Fact. The vast bulk of the Republican party--over 80%--still supports that nominee. Fact. The bulk also believe there is a deep state conspiracy to "get" Trump. This belief is also a fact.

From these facts I conclude that this majority does define and control the Republican party. And nothing in their voter behavior suggests any inclination to "revert to the GOP norm" if Trump loses, rather than believe their choice was subverted by the deep state.

Another version: There is a "GOP normal" faction of the Republican party which rejects Trump. Fact one. They are a minority of less than 15%. Fact two. Many of these will vote Dem or at least not Republican. Fact three. From which I conclude they neither control nor define the Republican party.

You would refute this position by showing that Trump didn't win his party's nomination, or didn't win by a huge majority, or that the majority who voted for him didn't vote for the candidate they really wanted, and that it does not really buy into deep state conspiracies against their man. Or why the minority "GOP normal" will suddenly re-attract angry Trump voters once Trump is no longer "present"--as opposed to raging against a deep state rigged election. None of which you have done.

But you don't conclude anything like that. No. Your response is that you "just don't agree," without providing the requested warrants.  And if I really were "not addressing [your] point," you wouldn't be refusing to restate it and demonstrating how I have missed it instead of just claiming I have and then turning tail.

So yes, I think I have provided a "superior argument," as would anyone who followed my step by step refutation of your "point" and your consequent disengagement. 20 posts back you could have just said "Well, I can't really support that point; I just feel it." Or you could have presented your ideas more tentatively: "Does this fly? Anyone see any holes?" I'd have been happy to let the whole issue go. But no, you had to double down and accuse me of missing the point and "absolutism", and now--high drama--you are neither going to address my counter argument nor "fall to your knees in supplication."  As if every option were available to you except continued, steady focus on your argument as an argument.

*I don't call inferences "opinions," as if all inferences were equally warranted guess work, equally well grounded. They are not.