Let’s try an exercise. In this exercise, you are forbidden from engaging in a discussion with someone from an oppositional political viewpoint unless you can effectively make their argument using their logic (or better if you’re feeling generous).
I’ll start.
Headlines from today’s news cycle:
“The majority of Americans think Trump fired Comey to slow the Russia investigation”
This is a commonly used logical fallacy that makes an appeal to the people (argumentum ad populum), and has no bearing upon what the truth is. This headline would be made effective if it actually showed proof that Trump fired Comey because of an investigation. Until you have such proof, why don’t you shut your idiot mouth? The news media knows that this headline will whip people up and offers exactly zero substance. If you want to be the party of science, of rational thought, why don’t you lead with your actions? Shame on you, liberals.
How did I do? Okay next.
Comey Is Said to Have Become Unsettled by Interactions With Trump
Innuendo. Where is your proof? In the absence of proof, you are resorting to an implication without actually providing a definitive statement. Are you giving yourself wiggle-room for later denial? “Comey is said to have…” By whom? Some aide? Who is this aide? Credible source? If it’s a credible source, then say, “Credible source Provides Evidence of Improper Behavior by Trump.” As a detail, you can also provide evidence of Comey’s discomfort. Video of him avoiding eye contact? The awkward hug/handshake. haha.
I can’t believe the New York Times let’s its reporters get away with such a lazy piece. And I’m just attacking the method, not actually trying to articulate the worldview of a Trump supporter or “scandal denier.” I think it comes from the same place as climate denial, so let me lay it out and see if I get some of it right.
Let’s assume Trump is a blowhard. We know he is. He comes from the tough New York real estate and construction world. Stuff gets done because you push, sometimes aggressively for your interests and your project at hand. Trump seems to have proven himself somewhat adept at this. By all accounts he is rich, and has built and developed some high end properties. He’s had some ups. He’s had some downs. But he keeps trying, and he’s come back from some pretty heavy blows.
America loves a tenacious scrapper who gets back up.
You voted for him because you perceived him as a tough guy who could get things done. You didn’t necessarily like him nor would you leave him alone with your daughter, but you thought he was YOUR tough guy and he would advocate for you and correct the perceived slouch of America toward being a global also ran.
People on the right, are you with me so far?
Now, Trump is in the White House, and there’s a guy Michael Flynn who is being investigated for some money ties to Russia. Yeah, Trump knew going in that this could be a problem, but he liked Flynn’s moxie. Here was a guy who also talked and acted tough and knew how to deal with the Russians. Let’s go forward. There is this holdover director of the FBI James Comey who is mucking about. You know the truth, and you don’t see the problem with Flynn’s ties to Russia. It’s not like he was a traitor or something. For Pete’s sake he was a lieutenant general (three stars, count ’em) in the U.S. Army. He didn’t get to that level for being a traitor. His resume is unimpeachable. He’s got the best interests of the U.S. at stake, and wouldn’t it be nice to deal effectively with the Russians? Trump thinks he’s a safe pick.
Obama didn’t like him? Even better.
Trump knows the facts, but the FBI director is still “investigating.” We’ve all seen how he “investigates” with leak after leak after innuendo all the while eroding confidence. Trump keeps him around to see if he shapes up, but he’s keeping watch. Comey did it to Hillary, and he will do it to Trump, because he’s only loyal to himself. He’s a grandstander, a showboater. Trump knows he’s done no wrong, so he assumes the “investigation” is only there to get him.
Let me ask you, those of you on the left, if you were being “investigated” or attacked for something you know you didn’t do, wouldn’t you shut it down if you could? If you knew the person doing the investigating was actively trying to undermine you, your cabinet, the American Government, and acting in all other ways in bad faith, wouldn’t you want to do something about it? From Trump’s point of view, he’s an innocent victim. Flynn too. Comey’s the enemy of the law and order, the very thing he pledged to uphold.
Now, those of you on the right, do you feel fairly represented by my take on your positions? I could tear it all down if I wanted, but I’d rather have you make the left’s case for why Trump is bad for America.
Only conservatives need reply.