Donald Trump’s catchphrase is “I’m gonna make America great again.” On the surface, he’s got a lot to back it up. He’s a wealthy businessman. He knows how to handle a crowd, get attention, and say the right words to fire up crowds. He’s moderately conservative, with ultra-conservative stances on immigration balanced out with moderate stances on Planned Parenthood, guns, and gay rights, thus well-positioned to keep the right happy while stealing moderate voters from the left.
But his ‘ability’ to “make America great again” is shallow, and doesn’t stand up to scrutiny. His business savvy and crowd appeal is only a mirage. Even supposing he manages to make the Republican nomination, and by a miracle beats the Democratic nominee, his four years in office will sink America’s foreign policy and financial policy. Continue reading →
See also Liberal Logic – Talking Points: It’s a Choice
Liberals love to claim the label of the ‘Pro-Choice Party.’
Using the word ‘choice’ to refer to abortion makes them feel nice, warm, and fuzzy. It erases the guilt of supporting organized mass murder for profit from their conscience, and instead replaces it with the happy feeling of doing something good by supporting a woman’s so-called ‘right to choose.’
The only problem with this is that liberals are only the ‘party of choice’ when that choice adheres to their preconceived agendas. Specifically, liberals only support ‘choice’ when it comes to a woman’s decision to abort (read kill) an unborn child. Continue reading →
Not to be confused with the only distantly related logical fallacy Ad Hominem.
Name-calling is the name that I personally give to the act of changing the name of some act or object or person, in an attempt to change the audience’s perception of it. Normally, name-calling is perfectly acceptable as a rhetorical device, but when it is used as an argument that purports to support or refute an argument, it is logically fallacious. Continue reading →
See also Name-calling
This is easily the most cited argument in support of what the blogger Matt Walsh has called “the highest sacrament in the Church of Liberalism.” (Matt Walsh on TheBlaze) Namely, abortion.
Many liberals seem intellectually unable to come up with better support of one of their most prized social reforms. Granted, there are some truly intelligent liberals, but they are rare and few in between. Continue reading →
A red herring is an argument that seems to be relevant to the original premise, and is brought forward as either refutation or support of the same, but in reality, has nothing to do with the issue at hand. The red herring is a well-known and documented informal logical fallacy. Continue reading →
“Until the courts put a stop to it, public debate over same-sex marriage displayed American democracy at its best. Individuals on both sides of the issue passionately, but respectfully, attempted to persuade their fellow citizens to accept their views. Americans considered the arguments and put the question to a vote. The electorates of 11 States, either directly or through their representatives, chose to expand the traditional definition of marriage. Many more decided not to. Win or lose, advocates for both sides continued pressing their cases, secure in the knowledge that an electoral loss can be negated by a later electoral win. That is exactly how our system of government is supposed to work.”
— Antonin Scalia in Obergefell v. Hodges
This filibuster took place on May 20, 2015.
It’s one thing to hear about mass Chinese government censorship of Western social media networks and websites – it’s a whole other thing to experience it firsthand.
Every one of the top four websites on the Web (by Alexa ranking) is blocked. Continue reading →
Did I hear some liberals say the economy was improving under Obama?
In what was an “unambiguously” unpleasant April jobs payrolls report the fact that the number of Americans not in the labor force rose once again, this time to 93,194K from 93,175K, with the result being a participation rate of 69.45 or just above the lowest percentage since 1977, will merely catalyze even more upside to the so called “market” which continues to reflect nothing but central bank liquidity, and thus – the accelerating deterioration of the broader economy.
So, the Stoa 2015 Spring Vote items are out, and you’re wondering what you should vote for. Here is a brief analysis of each item on the ballot this May. We last looked at the four proposed LD resolutions. Let’s now briefly go over the three proposed TP resolutions.
I am not a team policy debater, so I’m only going to compile the sentiments I’ve heard expressed in social media, etc.
Dear Team Policy Debaters, 1. The United States federal government should substantially increase its engagement toward the People’s Republic of China. 2. Resolved: That the United States federal government should substantially change its policy toward one or more private or federal retirement programs in the United States.
Continue reading →