If her argument is "don't vote for Ted, vote for Don because Ted flip flopped", there are two reasons to dismiss that argument.
1.) Trump flipped as recently as July 2015.
2.)Because one flips on the issue, such as Trump in 2015, such as Palin previously, and (supposedly for the sake of argument)such as Cruz in 2013, doesn't mean that one isn't correct on the issue today.
Once again, it’s attacking the messenger instead of the message.
No. Again it's relevant. It makes the point. See my argument #2.
I'll give you another example.
Let's say that an alcoholic 10 years on the wagon, walks into a job interview. The job interviewer, who also is an alcoholic who is also 10 years on the wagon, tells the person being interviewed that he would not hire him for the job because of his problem.
The interviewee then points out to the interviewer, that the interviewer has the same problem and that he still does his job well.
In this example the interviewer isn't attacking the interviewer. He is making a relevant point.
Do I make the point clear??
Do I make the point clear??
***
Nope!
Let me correct myself instead of just a flippant reply.
I get what you’re saying.
But the arguments you’re arguing against aren’t the kind of arguments that I’m hearing Sarah make.
And to use your metaphor, the argument is whether or not an alocholic on the wagon can do the job, or is more trustworthy. Not whether the interviewer is trustworthy.
But in this case, the argument goes like thus, as far as I can tell.
1: Ted says he’s always been against illegals.
2: This shows pretty clear evidence that he hasn’t always been against them.
3: So he was lying then or he’s lying now.
4: Therefore, we have reason to doubt his trustworthiness.
And I have yet to see any real arguments on this thread against that.
The interviewer doesn't know what he's doing.
But one thing the 'interviewer' does know -is that that the dark cloud- is an indisputable fact.