Replies

This is an issue that seems to be pervasive with Trump devotees. The two most commonly used are:

Eliminated by a mathematical certainty, which does not mean has no way to win the nomination but was morphed from the much lesser idea of can’t win on first ballot. Near as I can make out, this a voluntary and very clear spin of truth. Mathematical certainty ALWAYS means in the sports media, that whatever it is will not happen period. That is it, no more chance however slight. ONE counter example and it is false. No other discussion is possible. Two plus two equals ten territory. It has been so oft repeated and is so CLEARLY WRONG it is like hearing someone using nails on a blackboard and claiming it is music. I continue to hear it and it is EXACTLY the same technique used by the left to obfuscate the truth. Black lives matter v All lives matter. Logic is failed when someone claims they believe in both but are shouted down. It is the same logic by assassination of meaning. We don’t speak the same language, and the meanings that I could point to in textbooks, dictionaries et. al. don’t help getting the point across. Red Queen words mean what I say they mean nothing more nothing less.

GOPe GOP establishment. Months ago the Trump theme search found no one can work with Ted, he’s the most hated man in the universe, he’s so hated he has to bribe the Ice Cream man when he gets his children cones...Now all of sudden he is the head of a conspiracy to dethrone Trump and steal all his earned delegates. Then he is going to be deserted again and be all alone crying in his beer, without a bartender to talk to. Just recently Trump hired a competent manager which will get Trump up to speed on the tactics Cruz has been using for months.

Trump and Cruz are in the running candidates. They will be until the first vote at convention. After that, fortune tellers are needed. Anyone who says differently is either a partisan who is trying to deceive...and that may include self deception or just really lacking in enough knowledge of brainpower of the process to competently comment. THAT POSSIBILITY IN A VERY WELL INFORMED GROUP like those here in FR scares the hell out of me.

Logical fallacies that are broken regularly:

If you assert, you are responsible for proving. You cannot require others to believe your proof. But if an independent third party came up, who would prevail? I’d would let God judge, but that will be delayed a bit much for my taste.

Ad hominem attacks, it also include the objects of the discussion not just the posters.

Too long a post, but let me know if you are running into the same thoughts.