Jump to content

transam

Advanced Member
  • Posts

    94,842
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    23

Posts posted by transam

  1. 7 minutes ago, LosLobo said:

    I know hero worship dulls critical thinking, but this?

    The logical potholes in your one-liner....


    Red Herring / Whataboutism
    The discussion is Trump’s hard-ball tactics at NATO. Dragging Harris in is a side alley—her hypothetical success or failure doesn’t change what Trump actually did.

    Appeal to Hypothetical
    “Could Harris have got this through?” invites you to debate an alternate universe. Hypotheticals dress rhetoric up as proof.

    False Dichotomy
    It frames the outcome as either Trump does it or Harris fails—ignoring every other path (e.g., collective bargaining, different timelines, another president).

    Burden-Shifting / Argument from Ignorance
    The naysayers must now prove Harris couldn’t have done it. Lack of proof against a claim isn’t proof for it.

    Implicit Ad Populum
    “All the naysayers” sets up a crowd-vs-lone-hero vibe: if you doubt Trump’s win, you’re with the naysayers. Popular framing, not proof.
     

    In short: a rhetorical shell game—swap in Harris, move the burden, and hope no one notices the original claim just left the stage.

    Brilliant..........:clap2:

    • Agree 1
    • Thanks 1
×
×
  • Create New...