Featured Confronting the fallacies of #NEVERTRUMP

"How to Compromise Your Beliefs" by Wayne Grudem.

Excellent direct rebuttal here:

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/eidos/2016/07/a-good-man-justifies-a-wicked-deed-grudem-on-trump/

Sent from my Motorola Droid Turbo

 

Trump is more than just flawed.

 

Your rebuttal" asserts, "Donald J. Trump is the least qualified, least fit nominee of a major party in the history of the Republic." Ergo, Hillary is more qualified and fit to be president? Consider who Trump has proposed to fill the empty seat of the Supreme Court vs. who recent Democrats have chosen for the Supreme Court (plus, four Supreme Court judges are already radical left-wing Activists).

"Here is what we know for certain: if we back the man who is proud, sexist, racist, libertine, a lover of money, then we will lose the right to say 'character counts' forever." Character counts, but positions on the issues count more than character, and Trump is better on practically every issue.

 

Perhaps you can define "more than just flawed" where it can be seen to invalidate the professors argument, thus demonstrate his conclusion false, rather than being a play on semantics toward a fallacious attempt to simply disregard the premise with syntactic ambiguity?

 

I was not addressing the professor because at this point I do not care. I was addressing the down playing of the problems with Trump by the ridiculous use of the idea that all candidates are flawed as if Trump is like any other candidate. Those who have issues and will not vote for him on the conservative side are tired of corrupt and seriously flawed candidates who have shown great moral deprivation in their life time. Trump lacks the character to hold the office of the President of the US. Just as Clinton did and does. His affairs, his position on eminent domain, his casino's are just a few.

I think Trump gets unfairly criticized on the board and many other places, but there is enough reality about Trump that solid conservatives and Christians should know better than to vote for him. He is an immoral man. regardless of what Hillary will do his immoral character will still be a reality. When you cast your vote for Trump you will have voted for one of the most immoral men in America.

 

Well, if you had addressed the professor rather than “his argument” (which is the subject) I would have just seen it as another fallacy of Ad Hominem, especially in light of the subject of the Op being about #NeverTrump fallacies . You clearly addressed the professor’s argument when you referred to the subject of his premise of concerning “flawed”.

That is not the objective of the professor’s claim. Your claim here amounts to a strawman. Nor did he “downplay” anything, in fact, he acknowledged the problems of him being “flawed’. You may not like his argument and may think of it as downplaying from the point of “argument of outrage fallacy”, but you have not shown his argument to be invalid or false with the accusation of “downplaying”.

Nor is this (“use of the idea”) the subject of the professor’s claims and “it” (Trump is like any other candidate.) is not even part of his premise. Another strawman already???

Yet, the professor’s argument’s conclusion stands that a morally right choice can be made, in light of these flaws and still stands regardless of your “argument from outrage” (tired of corruption) fallacy.

Yet, the professor’s argument’ conclusion stands that a morally right choice can be made. …and your argument is beginning to amount to a fallacious smokescreen toward his argument. Once again, these "flaws" are recognized and are not in dispute.

I agree, but this is still not on the subject of the professor’s argument…

A. You are still disregarding the professor’s argument: “because there is nothing morally wrong with voting for a flawed candidate if you think he will do more good for the nation than his opponent. In fact, it is the morally right thing to do.”

B. “that solid conservatives and Christians should know” …you do realize that after disregarding the professor’s argument through “various means” you have offered yet another fallacious argument, don’t you, Scotty?

The professor’s argument does not deny this (immorality/flaws) as a reality, in fact, it directly allows for it.

Even if true, the professor’s argument (which takes into account Trump’s “flaws”) still stands that if you think he will do more good than his opponent a morally right choice can be made.

P.S. "In the Light" giving a "like" to your arguments above in a tread about "Confronting the Fallacies of #NeverTrump" cracks me up! ...LOL ...Just sayin...

 

http://theresurgent.com/why-bowing-to-nebuchadnezzar-is-a-morally-good-choice-by-wayne-grew-dim/

Sent from my Motorola Droid Turbo

 

I told you I do not care about the professors claim. Once I read, "because there is nothing morally wrong with voting for a flawed candidate if you think he will do more good for the nation than his opponent." , I stopped caring about the rest because I do not listen arguments that downplay issues in order to make an argument. And yes that is exactly what he did in the quote I provided.

There can be no strawman since I addressed, in part, what the professor said.

I think you better learn what that is before you try to use it. Voting against corruption does not fit it. Corruption and low moral character are solid reasons not to vote for someone and since my claim of Trump is fact, he in fact does have low moral character, my argument stands unabated.

sigh, and they are the very reason not to vote for him. The fact that some are willing to compromise on this shows the state of our country and why, as a country, we continually put in corrupt politicians.

I don't care.

You prop up my point. He in fact downplayed the issues with Trump to simply say that Trump is flawed, as in all candidates are flawed, is to down play Trumps issues as no worse than anyone else. This is false.

I did not say it denied them I said the professor down played his flaws as being no different than anyone else. If you are going to debate this please represent my words correctly.

Good according to whose standards? Did you pull that logic from scripture? Please quote the passage where I can find that.

 

What is truly astonishing is the amount of rationalization that you go through to support a morally bankrupt person for president. "Look, Trump will destroy the country in different ways and a tad bit slower than Hillary. Vote for Trump. It's the moral thing to do!"

 

So what are these specific ways you believe he will destroy the country?

 

Please bookmark this post so I don't have to repeat and repeat and repeat this stuff every week. I don't have time to list all 99 reasons, so just a few will have to do.

1. Trump intends to weaken the First Amendment. He's blacklisted reporters from covering his campaign and he's stated he thinks the First Amendment should be changed to make it easier to sue journalists for libel.

2. He's turning a blind eye to Putin. He just said that Putin "is not in Ukraine". He said he might not honor NATO commitments to defend Europe. That's like a green light for Russian to invade the Baltic states. This could lead to escalating tensions with our allies and Russia. Possibly a new war.

3. Further, he's shown an admiration of strongmen authoritarians. He's praised Putin, Saddam Hussein, Kim Jong-Un, China's handling of Tiananmen Square. I expect he will adopt a similar demeanor as president. Imagine Trump issuing executive orders. He's said that "he will not allow companies to move their headquarters outside the U.S."

3. Trumpeteers go-to argument is that he will appoint good SCOTUS judges. How do we know that? He's walks back almost everything he says, plus he said his own sister would make a fine Supreme Court judge. She is a flaming pro-abortion liberal. We could get a couple of lousy appointees. You never know. (Don't bother with the "but...but...but...Hillary argument. Yes, she would be a disaster with Supreme Court appointees.)

4. Because he IS NOT A CONSERVATIVE he favors big government solutions. He's says he's for a market based health insurance program and then in the next sentence he says he's "going to take care of people who are dying on the street because there will be a group of people that are not going to be able to think in terms of private or anything else.” Going even further, on 60 minutes he said, "Everybody got to be covered. I know that is an un-Republican thing for me to say, but we gotta cover everybody. Everybody's going to be taken care of much better than they are now. The government's gonna pay for it." The implication is a new federal health insurance system. He praises Planned Parenthood. He agrees with liberal SCOTUS rulings on eminent domain. He supports the ethanol mandate. He for raising the minimum wage, etc. etc.

5. Trade Policy. His proposed tariffs against China, Mexico, whomever, would raise prices for American consumers and fail to bring back jobs. For a supposed business genius (which he's not, witness his numerous business failings) he should know that a lot of 20th century manufacturing jobs, i.e. steelworkers, garment workers, many manufacturing jobs have disappeared because of automation, robotics, and increased production, not solely because of cheaper overseas labor.

6. The Mexican wall is a folly and will never be built. If it is built, it will never be completed. More likely, it will be a federal funding sinkhole for money, have cost overruns, and be plagued with corruption. Then the Mexicans will simply dig tunnels under the wall.

Don't have time to continue but I could...

 

The Mexican wall has begun a long time ago and it is the right thing to do. Suing reporters is not a weakening of the first amendment rights. they get sued all the time. Manufacturing jobs have decreased because of regulations and taxes. The automation factor is a small one and not worth mentioning in the big picture.

I am equally unsure of his scotus picks. Being unsure we cannot use that as proof positive it will be part of how he destroys the country.

Number 3 is just absurd.

 

Trump wants to make it easier to sue, to "loosen the libel laws". This means weakening the First Amendment.

Manufacturing jobs have decreased because of automation and productivity gains, not because of regulations and taxes.

Reagan and the Bush's have picked four bad justices. Given that Trump is more liberal than those former presidents, why would Trump's record be any better?

 

Regarding Trump's position on No Federal Health Care. Excerpt from a 60 Minutes interview:

Scott Pelley: How do you fix it?

Trump: There’s many different ways, by the way. Everybody’s got to be covered. This is an un-Republican thing for me to say because a lot of times they say, “No, no, the lower 25 percent that can’t afford private. But–”

Pelley: Universal health care.

Trump: I am going to take care of everybody. I don’t care if it costs me votes or not. Everybody’s going to be taken care of much better than they’re taken care of now.

Pelley: The uninsured person is going to be taken care of. How? How?

Trump: They’re going to be taken care of. I would make a deal with existing hospitals to take care of people. And, you know what, if this is probably—

Pelley: Make a deal? Who pays for it?

Trump: —the government’s gonna pay for it. But we’re going to save so much money on the other side. But for the most it’s going to be a private plan and people are going to be able to go out and negotiate great plans with lots of different competition with lots of competitors with great companies and they can have their doctors, they can have plans, they can have everything.

 

At least you are honest about it. Get ready to get pummeled.

Yep, would work for a few years until the insurance companies set up in sanctuary states with favorable laws whereupon they would all move their HQ's to those handful of states and we'd be back to square one. This same shake out happened to the credit card business, which explains why most credit card companies are HQ'ed in Delaware and some in South Dakota.

 

And how do you know he won't change his mind? He changes his mind on a daily basis.