Republican Party leader in Delaware blames Jews for Trump’s impeachment

[Mountain Man]

The above is not assuming the conclusion MM, it is fillowing the evidence where it leads.

Nah, man, it's a textbook example of begging the question. You start with the assumption that Trump is a racist and then argue in a circle to conclude that he's a racist.

Take, for example, this non sequitur:

The 5 were exonerated with DNA evidence and a confession.

That is about as solid proof they are innocents there can be. Yet Trump still casts aspersions on them and their innocence.

Trump is therefore acting out of malice...

That the premises are true does not necessitate that the conclusion is true, making this argument logically invalid. In fact, there are any number of reasons other than malice that could be motivating Trump. You could just as easily have said, "Trump, therefore, does not understand DNA evidence." Or "Trump, therefore, is a fan of The Beatles." Or whatever, it doesn't matter, because your conclusion is not dependent on the premises and is effectively plucked out of thin air.

This is why I asked if you could make your case without speculation or assumption, which I confess was a bit of a setup on my part, because I knew you couldn't.

[oxmixmudd]

Nah, man, it's a textbook example of begging the question. You start with the assumption that Trump is a racist and then argue in a circle to conclude that he's a racist.

Take, for example, this non sequitur:

The 5 were exonerated with DNA evidence and a confession.

That is about as solid proof they are innocents there can be. Yet Trump still casts aspersions on them and their innocence.

Trump is therefore acting out of malice...

That the premises are true does not necessitate that the conclusion is true, making this argument logically invalid. In fact, there are any number of reasons other than malice that could be motivating Trump. You could just as easily have said, "Trump, therefore, does not understand DNA evidence." Or "Trump, therefore, is a fan of The Beatles." Or whatever, it doesn't matter, because your conclusion is not dependent on the premises and is effectively plucked out of thin air.

This is why I asked if you could make your case without speculation or assumption, which I confess was a bit of a setup on my part, because I knew you couldn't.

I understand the 'setup'. But I am ignoring it because what you are doing is pretending that the escape clauses you are using to proclaim my response invalid are not meaningless tripe. But that is exactly what they are. They do not represent any meaningful reasoning about the issue, they are just a means to pretending we cant know Trump is harboring racism or worse in his refusal to admit this men are innocent.

MM that is bovine feces, and you know it. You'd really rather present the president as so stupid and so utterly petty as to use random, meaningless reasons to continue to proclaim the guilt of innocent men than admit this is most likely either racism or a petty and egotistical inability to admit he was wrong?

Trump lives in the shadows. And a good part of the reason he can do that is because people like you are willing to put up argumentation like this on his behalf.

And I'm not going to back off. You are playing a dangerous game. The reality is Trump continuing to cast aspersions on these men is a very bad thing. It points strongly to racism. An honest person knows that, and most honest people will admit it.

[Mountain Man]

I understand the 'setup'. But I am ignoring it because...

...you know you can't meet the challenge.

[simplicio]

unfortunately from what I've observed, many of them are not. This is coming from observing face book posts of friends from conservative churches we have attended in the past.

Most would not be anti-semitic, but the 'Trump is God's man' is rampant, and the idea people opposed to Trump are opposing God is also not uncommon. Other ideas (gun control views, climate change, immigration issues) also tend to align with far right conservatism.

The number of overt. anti-Semites is negligible. But many are willing to allow themselves to be "fellow travelers".

[One Bad Pig]

The number of overt. anti-Semites is negligible. But many are willing to allow themselves to be "fellow travelers".

Must you stoop to unprovable scurrilous imputations? That's despicable.

[Mountain Man]

Must you stoop to unprovable scurrilous imputations? That's despicable.

It's the old "Even if I'm wrong, I'm still right" ruse.

[simplicio]

It's the old "Even if I'm wrong, I'm still right" ruse.

No, its a tough crowd. Is there anything possible which can be presented?

[simplicio]

What does "Jews in name only" mean?

Has anyone ever heard or read a similar phrase (such as in Christian or political discourse)?

[rogue06]

What does "Jews in name only" mean?

Has anyone ever heard or read a similar phrase (such as in Christian or political discourse)?

Likely a play on RINO

[simplicio]

Likely a play on RINO

Okay. What does rino mean? Does the rino think like a real republican thinks, support the things a real republican supports?

[rogue06]

It's the old "Even if I'm wrong, I'm still right" ruse.

Or the infamous "Fake but Accurate" line that emerged from the Ra^thergate fiasco.

[rogue06]

Okay. What does rino mean?

Republicans In Name Only. Which is why I said Jews in name only was a play on it

Does the rino think like a real republican thinks, support the things a real republican supports?

As I posted just yesterday in another thread:

Personally I think it is foolish to talk about "RINOs" (Republicans In Name Only)^[1] if they are sincere about trying to expand their base (the "big tent" concept). Having some sort of litmus test for doctrinal purity is a sure way to keep from growing^[2]

...



1. While I may have used the term before (not sure if I did) it was for pure expediency. A kind of shorthand for liberal Republicans since that's pretty much what it is understood to mean.

2. I realize that in a perfect world it would be best to convert folks to your way of thinking as a way of increasing membership and they should continue to do so, but it is daft to chase off those who align with you but aren't in perfect harmony.

[alaskazimm]

What does "Jews in name only" mean?

Has anyone ever heard or read a similar phrase (such as in Christian or political discourse)?

Jesus for one:

“‘I know your tribulation and your poverty (but you are rich) and the slander of those who say that they are Jews and are not, but are a synagogue of Satan.

[simplicio]

Republicans In Name Only. Which is why I said Jews in name only was a play on it



As I posted just yesterday in another thread:

Okay. What do you think was meant by the use of the phrase "Jews in name only"?

[rogue06]

Jesus for one:

He also said something about CINOs (Christians In Name Only)

Scripture Verse:

Matthew 7:21 ESV
"Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven."

© Copyright Original Source