IF REPUBLICANS LOSE IN 2020 AMERICA AS WE KNOW IT IS OVER, SAYS GLENN BECK

Newsweek ^ | 3/19/19 | EWAN PALMER

[TBP]

Glenn Beck has suggested that it would be the “end of the country as we know it” if Donald Trump does not win at the 2020 election because of the rise of radicalism and socialism in the Democratic Party.

Speaking to Fox News’s Sean Hannity, the conservative radio host and author said he had discussed the threat posed by the changing face of the party for the past year, which is now being highlighted by the election of Congresswomen such as Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Ilhan Omar, and the support of the Green New Deal.

“I said what was coming and the last few steps were that the radicals, the anarchists, the Islamists, the socialists would all gather together, they would not be working together, plotting together, but they would see the opportunity and they would all come together and work to destabilize Europe and America,” Beck said on Hannity, reported Mediate. “And that is exactly what is happening.”

Beck also spoke about a conversation he had with former Democratic vice presidential nominee Joe Lieberman, who has also been critical of the new faces at the party. Beck said the Democrats who live across the street from him who he gets along with “don’t believe in infanticide, they don’t believe in destroying the free market system, they don’t believe in all of the stuff that’s coming out of the mouths of these radicals."

Beck also suggested that the party needs a shake-up similar to what has occurred with the British Labour Party, which has seen its leader Jeremy Corbyn heavily criticized and several politicians leave the party over long-running issues with anti-Semitism by its members.

[50mm]

Okay. Dual major in Womyn's Studies and Gender Studies it is.

Angry NJ womyn.

Orange man bad.

Period.

[TBP]

There were other candidates.

By the binary logic that says “opposing Trump was in fact support for Hillary”, it logically follows that “opposing Hillary was in fact support for Trump,” does it not? (Of course it does; by the binary-choice logic, it has to be one or the other. Correct?

So:

If opposing Trump is in fact supporting Hillary, and
Opposing Hillary is in fact supporting Trump,

Then what is it if you opposed both of them? Support for both? (That would be the logical answer.)

Now, since that is a nonsensical, self-contradictory conclusion that is necessitated by the logic of your premise, then the premise must be in error.

[Kazan]

Anyone refusing to vote for Trump was helping Hillary Clinton.

There was no excuse for him not being behind Trump after the primary given that the fate of the Supreme Court was at stake.

[Lurker]

Supporting or opposing is very different from voting for one or the other. Stabby McCheeto made it quite clear who he was voting for. And it wasn’t President Trump.

A vote cast for any other candidate was actively assisting Hillary.

Beck can go screw himself.

L

[TBP]

The logic is the same.

If you consider not voting for Trump to be actively assisting Hillary, then logically you must consider not voting for Hillary to be actively assisting Trump.

If that’s true, then not voting for either actively assisted both.