Jonah takes the lame and rebuts them, but ignores the good and better arguments.
This is the fallacy of Contradict Confidently. It works by vigorously denouncing each of your opponent’s arguments as fallacious but just select one or two that you can easily defeat to prove the point. The harder arguments—the better cases, so to speak, are ignored. You concentrate on the easily rebutted points, even if there are only a few, and spend all your time by speaking or writing only about those, and lead the listener/hearer into the idea that that is all your opponent can muster. Then assume that you have won.
MY LOGICAL ARGUMENT
I don't even attempt to defend Trump. I WANT an assault, a full offense against the GOPe. I only want to see the RINO party broken in true defeat. I believe when the democrats win, the RINOs are fine with that because they still get power and money as "the loyal opposition" and are more than glad to become the convenient democrat and media punching bag as they still get "paid".
For years this win/lose between the democrats and RINOs have been a virtual shell game for the rest of us. The "pea" is in the same "shell" all along. The Uniparty.
They need a defeat from the inside, one which breaks the lobbyists, moneymen, bag men and all the other enablers of the Washington money cabal. Trump has his own money--he cannot be bribed like so many we've in the past.
Even if Trump turns on us after the election, well, we've had that happen since George Herbert Walker Bush with every Republican who won. If it breaks many of these RINOs from attaining power, it is a good deal in the long run.
He doesn’t have the money. He’s running on free air time right now. He won’t liquidate hard assets to fund his campaign.
“Jonah takes the lame and rebuts them, but ignores the good and better arguments.”
Totally true. I was going to reply to Jonah but then I decided he wasn’t being serious. He says he wants a debate with his readers, but it’s just cat and mouse games.