OFFICIAL: Donald Trump thread.

[mathed]

Live Stream of Trump Rally in Colorado Springs!!

[mathed]

If they’re superfan outlets then they wouldn’t be praising Trump

Logic is tough

I don't think they were "praising Trump" as much as they were sending out distress calls. Even Mini Mike Bloomberg and Mayor Buttplug said Trump was the winner and they're two of the libtard candidates running for the opportunity to get stomped out by Trump.

Losing is tough.

[1bad65]

I don't think they were "praising Trump" as much as they were sending out distress calls. Even Mini Mike Bloomberg and Mayor Buttplug said Trump was the winner and they're two of the libtard candidates running for the opportunity to get stomped out by Trump.

Losing is tough.

He's a "stupid voter".

He cant be expected to figure out the obvious.

[1bad65]

I don't think they were "praising Trump"

A straw man is a form of argument and an informal fallacy based on giving the impression of refuting an opponent's argument, while actually refuting an argument that was not presented by that opponent.

One who engages in this fallacy is said to be "attacking a straw man".

The typical straw man argument creates the illusion of having completely refuted or defeated an opponent's proposition through the covert replacement of it with a different proposition (i.e., "stand up a straw man") and the subsequent refutation of that false argument ("knock down a straw man") instead of the opponent's proposition. Straw man arguments have been used throughout history in polemical debate, particularly regarding highly charged emotional subjects.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man


That's why he's on Ignore. You can't crown yourself a master, undefeated debater when you can't even identify, much less stop using, the basic informal fallacies.

And he should be on your list too.

[travestyny]

That's why he's on Ignore.

And he should be on your list too.

Until he makes a thread that you want to post in.


In which case you'll cry, fall to the ground, and flail your arms and legs until the thread is made available to you

[mathed]

A straw man is a form of argument and an informal fallacy based on giving the impression of refuting an opponent's argument, while actually refuting an argument that was not presented by that opponent.

One who engages in this fallacy is said to be "attacking a straw man".

The typical straw man argument creates the illusion of having completely refuted or defeated an opponent's proposition through the covert replacement of it with a different proposition (i.e., "stand up a straw man") and the subsequent refutation of that false argument ("knock down a straw man") instead of the opponent's proposition. Straw man arguments have been used throughout history in polemical debate, particularly regarding highly charged emotional subjects.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man


That's why he's on Ignore. You can't crown yourself a master, undefeated debater when you can't even identify, much less stop using, the basic informal fallacies.

And he should be on your list too.

Haha, yeah the tactics are so predictable. I never really bothered with the ignore list thing, I'll just ignore the comments once someone goes off the rails.

Maybe still read the comments but laugh to myself instead of wasting my time on a response. Keep an eye on them for a while and strike when the opportunity presents itself to kick em while they're down.

[Zaroku]

Trump has that rare ability to talk big, make Kitte to no sense and talk a lot of big chit!

That is America .....

[aboutfkntime]

A straw man is a form of argument and an informal fallacy based on giving the impression of refuting an opponent's argument, while actually refuting an argument that was not presented by that opponent.

One who engages in this fallacy is said to be "attacking a straw man".

The typical straw man argument creates the illusion of having completely refuted or defeated an opponent's proposition through the covert replacement of it with a different proposition (i.e., "stand up a straw man") and the subsequent refutation of that false argument ("knock down a straw man") instead of the opponent's proposition. Straw man arguments have been used throughout history in polemical debate, particularly regarding highly charged emotional subjects.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man


That's why he's on Ignore. You can't crown yourself a master, undefeated debater when you can't even identify, much less stop using, the basic informal fallacies.

And he should be on your list too.

he is definitely a master-bater

[aboutfkntime]

wow, Stone got 40 months...

[BuckToothed]

https://thedailywake.com/2020/02/20/...ial-testimony/

John Bolton Trashes Democrats' 'Grossly Partisan' Impeachment, Downplays Impact of Would-Be Testimony

On Wednesday, President Trump's former national security advisor, John Bolton, made a public appearance alongside Obama's former national security advisor, Susan Rice, at Vanderbilt University, where he blasted the Democrats' ”grossly partisan” impeachment against Trump, and downplayed the impact of the testimony he would have had on the outcome of the impeachment vote.

According to Bolton, the House “committed impeachment malpractice." He added that “the process drove Republicans who might have voted for impeachment away because it was so partisan.”

Bolton also revealed that he was surprised the Senate voted against him testifying, but dowplayed the impact his testimony would have had anyway. “People can argue about what I should have said and what I should have done. I would bet you a dollar right here and now, my testimony would have made no difference to the ultimate outcome.”

Susan Rice was critical of Bolton for his silence. “I can’t imagine withholding my testimony, with or without a subpoena,” she said. “I also can’t imagine, frankly, in the absence of being able to provide that information directly to Congress, not having exercised my First Amendment right to speak publicly at a time when my testimony or my experience would be relevant.”

Bolton still refused to divulge details about his forthcoming book, which perhaps suggests that the information he has is nothing new, and doesn't contain any evidence of actual wrongdoing by President Trump. We still haven't seen actual excerpts from the book, and since Bolton believes that his testimony wouldn't have changed the outcome, it's probably safe to say when the book does come out, a lot of people who pre-ordered it expecting it to be Trump's downfall will be very disappointed.