WaitingFor2020
Gold Member
- Jul 24, 2016
- 11,239
- 1,722
In order for an argument to be logical all contingent components must be equal.The Walton family donations heavily favor Republicans, so you would have no problems if Democrats passed laws that said Walmart could not process food Stamps?
I hope you can reread this portion and spot your logical fallacy. That is just an absurd statement. However, it does provide some insight into the liberal mind.
PP donates to Democrats, Republicans say Medicaid/Medicare not valid there.
Walmart donates to Republicans, Democrats could say food stamps not valid there.
I'm sorry id that was too difficult for you.
Your logical fallacy is...A Composition Fallacy.
Walmart is not subsidized by the government, PP is. Your usage of the Food Stamp program is also logically incorrect as food stamps are a completely separate program in which Walmart AGREES to take part in. Walmart's existence is not contingent upon food stamps. Whereas PP's existence is contingent, at least in part, on government subsidy.
Who lobbies who is separate and immaterial as your primary example of which was logically flawed.
View attachment 121614
I can always tell when someone is losing an argument, they post a really big graphic as if they think that's going to help.