Are There Any Intelligent Trump Followers?

[Liminal]

Just imagine what you might have been capable of achieving if you had been just a little smarter.

Switching over to the Logical Fallacy of Appeal to Ridicule does not change the fact that my stated reasons were quite

intelligent. You certainly were not able to point out any flaws in my reasoning.

Nor did you address my point that what you are engaged with this thread, is the Logical Fallacy of Proof by Assertion.

The problem you're having is: You've failed utterly to make any salient points or even mildly intriguing insights about anything. You have no intelligent posts to point to.

And more unsupported assertions.

I've already dispensed with one of your little jewels as a classic example of a logical fallacy. You still can't articulate why you believe Trump will do what he says, not with anything that anyone would find compelling anyway..

And now you are moving the Goal Posts.

I already explained why I considered Trump more likely to "do" the policies that I support, compared to the other candidates.

So once again; you will vote for Trump based on what you don't know about him. Your decision is based on the absence of information about Donald Trump.

 

[Correll]

Switching over to the Logical Fallacy of Appeal to Ridicule does not change the fact that my stated reasons were quite

intelligent. You certainly were not able to point out any flaws in my reasoning.

Nor did you address my point that what you are engaged with this thread, is the Logical Fallacy of Proof by Assertion.

The problem you're having is: You've failed utterly to make any salient points or even mildly intriguing insights about anything. You have no intelligent posts to point to.

And more unsupported assertions.

I've already dispensed with one of your little jewels as a classic example of a logical fallacy. You still can't articulate why you believe Trump will do what he says, not with anything that anyone would find compelling anyway..

And now you are moving the Goal Posts.

I already explained why I considered Trump more likely to "do" the policies that I support, compared to the other candidates.

n

So once again; you will vote for Trump based on what you don't know about him. Your decision is based on the absence of information about Donald Trump.

Judging someone relative to the other choices, AND including the lack of a long political history as a minus in the decision process, is NOT voting based on the "absence of information".

YOu just purposefully misrepresented what I said, so that you could continue to "assert" dishonestly that, still no one has demonstrated that there are "any intelligent Trump followers". (as in the Logical Fallacy of Proof By Assertion).

 

[Liminal]

The problem you're having is: You've failed utterly to make any salient points or even mildly intriguing insights about anything. You have no intelligent posts to point to.

And more unsupported assertions.

I've already dispensed with one of your little jewels as a classic example of a logical fallacy. You still can't articulate why you believe Trump will do what he says, not with anything that anyone would find compelling anyway..

And now you are moving the Goal Posts.

I already explained why I considered Trump more likely to "do" the policies that I support, compared to the other candidates.

n

So once again; you will vote for Trump based on what you don't know about him. Your decision is based on the absence of information about Donald Trump.

Judging someone relative to the other choices, AND including the lack of a long political history as a minus in the decision process, is NOT voting based on the "absence of information".

YOu just purposefully misrepresented what I said, so that you could continue to "assert" dishonestly that, still no one has demonstrated that there are "any intelligent Trump followers". (as in the Logical Fallacy of Proof By Assertion).

Obvious logical fallacy. You've explained why the other candidates are bad, but you've failed to explain why you believe Donald Trump will keep his promises.

 

[Dot Com]

Relevant:

 

[longknife]

Trump could not be a successful businessman if he was known to be untrustworthy. Is that too difficult to understand?

 

[Correll]

And more unsupported assertions.

I've already dispensed with one of your little jewels as a classic example of a logical fallacy. You still can't articulate why you believe Trump will do what he says, not with anything that anyone would find compelling anyway..

And now you are moving the Goal Posts.

I already explained why I considered Trump more likely to "do" the policies that I support, compared to the other candidates.

n

So once again; you will vote for Trump based on what you don't know about him. Your decision is based on the absence of information about Donald Trump.

Judging someone relative to the other choices, AND including the lack of a long political history as a minus in the decision process, is NOT voting based on the "absence of information".

YOu just purposefully misrepresented what I said, so that you could continue to "assert" dishonestly that, still no one has demonstrated that there are "any intelligent Trump followers". (as in the Logical Fallacy of Proof By Assertion).

Obvious logical fallacy. You've explained why the other candidates are bad, but you've failed to explain why you believe Donald Trump will keep his promises.

You should not try to use the "Logical Fallacy" argument. YOu don't understand it.


You don't get to set the bar for me.

I am satisfied that Trump is more likely to support policies I want, than those who openly advocate policies I oppose or those that claim to support policies I support but have a record of betraying me on them.

IMO, that is the best choice I can do with the information I have available.

So, can you address that without pretending to misunderstand it, or without moving the goal posts, or without trying to set a higher standard of proof than I think I need, or without dodging and returning to your overall strategy of Proof by Assertion?

 

[Correll]

Relevant:

 

[eddiew]

Damn right .. I would have to go to the grocery store for bread and peanut butter.
But hey ... Just trying to help out ... If you want to suck as a host ... Well that's not a surprise either ...

.

Much like Donald Trump, when questioned, just yammer about trivial personal irrelevancies.

And making blanket statements that Trump supporters aren't intelligent is what? Relevant?

Would you care to refute the evidence? How should they be better described? Low information voters? Does that sound PC enough to describe fucking retards?

What evidence? It's your opinion, nothing more, nothing less.

Jesus, get over yourself Einstein.

We can call Trump followers lazy and unmotivated if you prefer.
The Key To The GOP Race: The Diploma Divide

Sorry Liminal I prefer brain dead Supporters of that loudmouthed con man???Yes brain dead

 

[eddiew]

I've already dispensed with one of your little jewels as a classic example of a logical fallacy. You still can't articulate why you believe Trump will do what he says, not with anything that anyone would find compelling anyway..

And now you are moving the Goal Posts.

I already explained why I considered Trump more likely to "do" the policies that I support, compared to the other candidates.

n

So once again; you will vote for Trump based on what you don't know about him. Your decision is based on the absence of information about Donald Trump.

Judging someone relative to the other choices, AND including the lack of a long political history as a minus in the decision process, is NOT voting based on the "absence of information".

YOu just purposefully misrepresented what I said, so that you could continue to "assert" dishonestly that, still no one has demonstrated that there are "any intelligent Trump followers". (as in the Logical Fallacy of Proof By Assertion).

Obvious logical fallacy. You've explained why the other candidates are bad, but you've failed to explain why you believe Donald Trump will keep his promises.

You should not try to use the "Logical Fallacy" argument. YOu don't understand it.


You don't get to set the bar for me.

I am satisfied that Trump is more likely to support policies I want, than those who openly advocate policies I oppose or those that claim to support policies I support but have a record of betraying me on them.

IMO, that is the best choice I can do with the information I have available.

So, can you address that without pretending to misunderstand it, or without moving the goal posts, or without trying to set a higher standard of proof than I think I need, or without dodging and returning to your overall strategy of Proof by Assertion?

We re going to win win win his one of his policies another We're going to build a fence,, you support them all you want Just goes to show you trumpters are rowing your boats with one oar

 

[Liminal]

I've already dispensed with one of your little jewels as a classic example of a logical fallacy. You still can't articulate why you believe Trump will do what he says, not with anything that anyone would find compelling anyway..

And now you are moving the Goal Posts.

I already explained why I considered Trump more likely to "do" the policies that I support, compared to the other candidates.

n

So once again; you will vote for Trump based on what you don't know about him. Your decision is based on the absence of information about Donald Trump.

Judging someone relative to the other choices, AND including the lack of a long political history as a minus in the decision process, is NOT voting based on the "absence of information".

YOu just purposefully misrepresented what I said, so that you could continue to "assert" dishonestly that, still no one has demonstrated that there are "any intelligent Trump followers". (as in the Logical Fallacy of Proof By Assertion).

Obvious logical fallacy. You've explained why the other candidates are bad, but you've failed to explain why you believe Donald Trump will keep his promises.

You should not try to use the "Logical Fallacy" argument. YOu don't understand it.


You don't get to set the bar for me.

I am satisfied that Trump is more likely to support policies I want, than those who openly advocate policies I oppose or those that claim to support policies I support but have a record of betraying me on them.

IMO, that is the best choice I can do with the information I have available.

So, can you address that without pretending to misunderstand it, or without moving the goal posts, or without trying to set a higher standard of proof than I think I need, or without dodging and returning to your overall strategy of Proof by Assertion?

And yet you seem to have absolutely no idea why you're satisfied with Trump.

 

[Correll]

And now you are moving the Goal Posts.

I already explained why I considered Trump more likely to "do" the policies that I support, compared to the other candidates.

n

So once again; you will vote for Trump based on what you don't know about him. Your decision is based on the absence of information about Donald Trump.

Judging someone relative to the other choices, AND including the lack of a long political history as a minus in the decision process, is NOT voting based on the "absence of information".

YOu just purposefully misrepresented what I said, so that you could continue to "assert" dishonestly that, still no one has demonstrated that there are "any intelligent Trump followers". (as in the Logical Fallacy of Proof By Assertion).

Obvious logical fallacy. You've explained why the other candidates are bad, but you've failed to explain why you believe Donald Trump will keep his promises.

You should not try to use the "Logical Fallacy" argument. YOu don't understand it.


You don't get to set the bar for me.

I am satisfied that Trump is more likely to support policies I want, than those who openly advocate policies I oppose or those that claim to support policies I support but have a record of betraying me on them.

IMO, that is the best choice I can do with the information I have available.

So, can you address that without pretending to misunderstand it, or without moving the goal posts, or without trying to set a higher standard of proof than I think I need, or without dodging and returning to your overall strategy of Proof by Assertion?

And yet you seem to have absolutely no idea why you're satisfied with Trump.

And now you are back to Logical Fallacy of Proof By Assertion.

Please stop lying.

Here you go again.

I am satisfied that Trump is more likely to support policies I want, than those who openly advocate policies I oppose or those that claim to support policies I support but have a record of betraying me on them.

IMO, that is the best choice I can do with the information I have available.

 

[Liminal]

So once again; you will vote for Trump based on what you don't know about him. Your decision is based on the absence of information about Donald Trump.

Judging someone relative to the other choices, AND including the lack of a long political history as a minus in the decision process, is NOT voting based on the "absence of information".

YOu just purposefully misrepresented what I said, so that you could continue to "assert" dishonestly that, still no one has demonstrated that there are "any intelligent Trump followers". (as in the Logical Fallacy of Proof By Assertion).

Obvious logical fallacy. You've explained why the other candidates are bad, but you've failed to explain why you believe Donald Trump will keep his promises.

You should not try to use the "Logical Fallacy" argument. YOu don't understand it.


You don't get to set the bar for me.

I am satisfied that Trump is more likely to support policies I want, than those who openly advocate policies I oppose or those that claim to support policies I support but have a record of betraying me on them.

IMO, that is the best choice I can do with the information I have available.

So, can you address that without pretending to misunderstand it, or without moving the goal posts, or without trying to set a higher standard of proof than I think I need, or without dodging and returning to your overall strategy of Proof by Assertion?

And yet you seem to have absolutely no idea why you're satisfied with Trump.

And now you are back to Logical Fallacy of Proof By Assertion.

Please stop lying.

Here you go again.

I am satisfied that Trump is more likely to support policies I want, than those who openly advocate policies I oppose or those that claim to support policies I support but have a record of betraying me on them.

IMO, that is the best choice I can do with the information I have available.

But you have no idea why Trump satisfies you.

 

[candycorn]

Are There Any Intelligent Trump Followers?

no

 

[Correll]

Judging someone relative to the other choices, AND including the lack of a long political history as a minus in the decision process, is NOT voting based on the "absence of information".

YOu just purposefully misrepresented what I said, so that you could continue to "assert" dishonestly that, still no one has demonstrated that there are "any intelligent Trump followers". (as in the Logical Fallacy of Proof By Assertion).

Obvious logical fallacy. You've explained why the other candidates are bad, but you've failed to explain why you believe Donald Trump will keep his promises.

You should not try to use the "Logical Fallacy" argument. YOu don't understand it.


You don't get to set the bar for me.

I am satisfied that Trump is more likely to support policies I want, than those who openly advocate policies I oppose or those that claim to support policies I support but have a record of betraying me on them.

IMO, that is the best choice I can do with the information I have available.

So, can you address that without pretending to misunderstand it, or without moving the goal posts, or without trying to set a higher standard of proof than I think I need, or without dodging and returning to your overall strategy of Proof by Assertion?

And yet you seem to have absolutely no idea why you're satisfied with Trump.

And now you are back to Logical Fallacy of Proof By Assertion.

Please stop lying.

Here you go again.

I am satisfied that Trump is more likely to support policies I want, than those who openly advocate policies I oppose or those that claim to support policies I support but have a record of betraying me on them.

IMO, that is the best choice I can do with the information I have available.

But you have no idea why Trump satisfies you.

YOur purposefully obtuseness is very rude. Please stop being a dick.

 

[Correll]

Are There Any Intelligent Trump Followers?

no

LOL. SO funny.

You know what else if funny?

 

[candycorn]

Are There Any Intelligent Trump Followers?

no

LOL. SO funny.

You know what else if funny?

What else is funny?
The way you look...in the morning, in the afternoon, and at night.

 

[Liminal]

Obvious logical fallacy. You've explained why the other candidates are bad, but you've failed to explain why you believe Donald Trump will keep his promises.

You should not try to use the "Logical Fallacy" argument. YOu don't understand it.


You don't get to set the bar for me.

I am satisfied that Trump is more likely to support policies I want, than those who openly advocate policies I oppose or those that claim to support policies I support but have a record of betraying me on them.

IMO, that is the best choice I can do with the information I have available.

So, can you address that without pretending to misunderstand it, or without moving the goal posts, or without trying to set a higher standard of proof than I think I need, or without dodging and returning to your overall strategy of Proof by Assertion?

And yet you seem to have absolutely no idea why you're satisfied with Trump.

And now you are back to Logical Fallacy of Proof By Assertion.

Please stop lying.

Here you go again.

I am satisfied that Trump is more likely to support policies I want, than those who openly advocate policies I oppose or those that claim to support policies I support but have a record of betraying me on them.

IMO, that is the best choice I can do with the information I have available.

But you have no idea why Trump satisfies you.

YOur purposefully obtuseness is very rude. Please stop being a dick.

Let's try a different intelligence question: Donald Trump has repeatedly proclaimed that he will build a great big wall and Mexico will pay for it. Does this sound likely or even possible to achieve? If so how? Donald is a little shy about sharing the details.

 

[bripat9643]

You should not try to use the "Logical Fallacy" argument. YOu don't understand it.


You don't get to set the bar for me.

I am satisfied that Trump is more likely to support policies I want, than those who openly advocate policies I oppose or those that claim to support policies I support but have a record of betraying me on them.

IMO, that is the best choice I can do with the information I have available.

So, can you address that without pretending to misunderstand it, or without moving the goal posts, or without trying to set a higher standard of proof than I think I need, or without dodging and returning to your overall strategy of Proof by Assertion?

And yet you seem to have absolutely no idea why you're satisfied with Trump.

And now you are back to Logical Fallacy of Proof By Assertion.

Please stop lying.

Here you go again.

I am satisfied that Trump is more likely to support policies I want, than those who openly advocate policies I oppose or those that claim to support policies I support but have a record of betraying me on them.

IMO, that is the best choice I can do with the information I have available.

But you have no idea why Trump satisfies you.

YOur purposefully obtuseness is very rude. Please stop being a dick.

Let's try a different intelligence question: Donald Trump has repeatedly proclaimed that he will build a great big wall and Mexico will pay for it. Does this sound likely or even possible to achieve? If so how? Donald is a little shy about sharing the details.

Here's the answer for you: No one cares if Mexico pays for it, dumbass. As long as the wall gets built, we're happy. Only Trump hating assholes like you think that's a big issue.

 

[Correll]

You should not try to use the "Logical Fallacy" argument. YOu don't understand it.


You don't get to set the bar for me.

I am satisfied that Trump is more likely to support policies I want, than those who openly advocate policies I oppose or those that claim to support policies I support but have a record of betraying me on them.

IMO, that is the best choice I can do with the information I have available.

So, can you address that without pretending to misunderstand it, or without moving the goal posts, or without trying to set a higher standard of proof than I think I need, or without dodging and returning to your overall strategy of Proof by Assertion?

And yet you seem to have absolutely no idea why you're satisfied with Trump.

And now you are back to Logical Fallacy of Proof By Assertion.

Please stop lying.

Here you go again.

I am satisfied that Trump is more likely to support policies I want, than those who openly advocate policies I oppose or those that claim to support policies I support but have a record of betraying me on them.

IMO, that is the best choice I can do with the information I have available.

But you have no idea why Trump satisfies you.

YOur purposefully obtuseness is very rude. Please stop being a dick.

Let's try a different intelligence question: Donald Trump has repeatedly proclaimed that he will build a great big wall and Mexico will pay for it. Does this sound likely or even possible to achieve? If so how? Donald is a little shy about sharing the details.

Building a wall is certainly possible. Indeed, we already have long stretches of walls and fences.

As for Mexico paying for it, yes that certainly sounds possible, and indeed, FAIR, considering the way that Mexico has been fucking US on immigration.

How exactly will that occur? Many scenarios have been discussed.

Cutting off all AID and counting that money towards the cost of the wall would be one possible scenario.

Taxing remittances would be another.

Confiscation of property from illegals being deported is another.

Or Trump could use the threat of denying access to the US market to pressure the Mexican government.

Or Trump could tax vacations to Mexico by US citizens. This would raise revenue, and punish Mexico for their sins, by making their vacations less competitive with alternatives.

Or it could be that Trump, with decades of business experience has ideas on this that he hasn't discussed yet.

As he understands that you don't tell the other side what your negotiating plan is before you start negotiations.

Or maybe he will try all of that, and more and we, America, still lose that battle.

If we still end up with the Wall, and control of the BOrder, that works for me.

 

[Liminal]

And yet you seem to have absolutely no idea why you're satisfied with Trump.

And now you are back to Logical Fallacy of Proof By Assertion.

Please stop lying.

Here you go again.

I am satisfied that Trump is more likely to support policies I want, than those who openly advocate policies I oppose or those that claim to support policies I support but have a record of betraying me on them.

IMO, that is the best choice I can do with the information I have available.

But you have no idea why Trump satisfies you.

YOur purposefully obtuseness is very rude. Please stop being a dick.

Let's try a different intelligence question: Donald Trump has repeatedly proclaimed that he will build a great big wall and Mexico will pay for it. Does this sound likely or even possible to achieve? If so how? Donald is a little shy about sharing the details.

Building a wall is certainly possible. Indeed, we already have long stretches of walls and fences.

As for Mexico paying for it, yes that certainly sounds possible, and indeed, FAIR, considering the way that Mexico has been fucking US on immigration.

How exactly will that occur? Many scenarios have been discussed.

Cutting off all AID and counting that money towards the cost of the wall would be one possible scenario.

Taxing remittances would be another.

Confiscation of property from illegals being deported is another.

Or Trump could use the threat of denying access to the US market to pressure the Mexican government.

Or Trump could tax vacations to Mexico by US citizens. This would raise revenue, and punish Mexico for their sins, by making their vacations less competitive with alternatives.

Or it could be that Trump, with decades of business experience has ideas on this that he hasn't discussed yet.

As he understands that you don't tell the other side what your negotiating plan is before you start negotiations.

Or maybe he will try all of that, and more and we, America, still lose that battle.

If we still end up with the Wall, and control of the BOrder, that works for me.

No you're wrong as usual, like all Trump followers. Trump has no plans to make Mexico pay for anything because it isn't possible to do so. There isn't even one so called proposal which has any chance of ever succeeding or even being approved by Congress. Unless your idea is to make Trump dictator, that would make sense.