Why Did Trump Become President?

In actuality, nothing. But seeing as he is a professional conman he convinced millions of aggrieved voters a vote for him was the answer to their frustration with the feeling they had been treated unfairly by "the system." And his message satisfied their need to identify scapegoats they could direct their anger at.

 

Twice impeached Trumps Senate did No investigations

They just rubber stamped his innocence.

 

I agree with your assessment of Trump except the ignorant part. He is very smart and a fast learner and might be ignorant about some things for only a minute or two.

 

The establishment on both sides of the aisle opposed his policies because they were founded in ignorance, bigotry, and were guided by authoritarian impulses.

 

America gave up a ton of sovereignty under the Pacific Trade agreement, although, on the surface, there was some actual trade sections that were/are beneficial. The main goal of the Paris Agreement was to get the U.S. to pony up trillions of dollars for other 3rd rate, 2nd rate and even a few 1st rate countries to spend. Maybe mitigating global warming -- a pipe dream but that too is another story -- was secondary.

BTW, I had a typo: NAFTA, not NATA.

 

The wall was signature, but the Mexico funded part was pissant. Getting rid of Obamacare was signature and you are correct he missed that one. However a president cannot just do things on his own (Obama excluded) and if McCain hadn't switched to the other side Obamacare would be gone. He was able to kneecap it (but not eliminate it) by getting rid of the mandates (which admittedly Obama did little to enforce,)

Pointing out the fallacies of what one says is in no way ad hominem.

 

I call BS. But i'd like to see how/if you can explain that claim... What logic path is being applied here?

 

Half correct. The establishment, which consists of both sides of the aisle in a cozy fraternity, opposed Trump because they feared he might actually be capable of draining the swamp of which the establishment are charter members. They were also bothered by his lack of authoritarian impulse (opposite of the establishment), his intelligence, and his willing to call things the way he saw them, not based on prejudice or bigotry.

 

Theres different kinds of smart. Trump relies on people with credentials to gove him the details. Once he has the details, he is very good at making an instinctual assessment of a situation. This works in the business world, but in the political world, the people with the best credentials are just the best and most reliable liars. After four years of being lied to by all 'the best people', he still hasn't figured out that the most qualified advisors are the least trustworthy.

 

I have read the conditions laid down in the Pacific trade deal. Nothing touches anyone's sovereignty and since the UK is very sensitive on that subject, it wouldn't go near anything that affects sovereignty.
And I am afraid cleaning up the planet costs a bit.
Trump spent most of his time pulling out of things for one reason or another. The real reason is because when working together, you can't take all the credit.

 

Much truth in what you say.

 

The way I was raised was to not make promises I can't keep. And to not make excuses if I fail, or to make excuses for others when they fail.

Correct. But that's not what you did. You made me the topic when you said "But you take glee that he didn't accomplishment (sic) some of them 100% and also relish that he was unable to do some of the other lesser things he said he would do."

Whatever you think *I* enjoy or relish is not the topic of the thread. It has no factual relevance to your argument, which would be better supported by a factual rebuttal addressing the topic. Hence, argumentum ad hominem.

 

So are you firmly against someone expressing goals, objectives, and hopes? If a football coach says we will win the conference this year, but doesn't, then is he a big fat liar in your view?

Well, you got a bit of a point there....

 

That isn't your favourite ad hpm

It was a speculation, often done in here and in real life.
An ad hom is a direct personal insult, from the Latin Ad Hominem or "towards the man".
He wasn't insulting you.he may be wrong and like me you don't like to be guessed about, but since you use this phrase a lot you should be clear what it applies to.

 

Except that’s not what Trump did. He said — more that once — he was going “build a wall and make Mexico pay for it.” He also said he was “the only one who could do this.”

And for Obamacare, he even gave it a timeline: “Immediately.”

You’re moving the goalposts... Pun intended. There is a substantive difference between the wishful thinking of a football coach and the specific promises made by a political candidate. And I neither expressed nor implied that made him a “big fat liar” as you suggest above. Only the factual statement that he failed to meet several of his signature campaign promises. This supports my position that this just makes him no different than any other politician: No better, no worse. They tell us what we want to hear to get our vote and then my goodness do they have short memories.

I will say I do believe he lied about releasing his tax returns. I have no confidence that he ever intended to release them, only that he said he would to placate the media and his detractors... and six years later, we are still waiting for the “beautiful” returns.

Your acknowledgement is a rarity and a damn sight better than most.

 

And an invalid argument, ie an error in logic, ie a fallacy, and of no factual value or relevance in support of the argument. It is nothing but a distraction, sometimes reflexive, out of rote, but always a fallacy.

You are simply wrong. True the ad hominem fallacy can often take the form of a personal attack, petty snipe, playground taunt, cheap shot, et al.. But it is not a requirement to be a logical fallacy. Argumentum ad hominem = “argument to the man” as you did correctly point out. It is saying that instead of arguing your point on the merits of the facts you proffer, you are arguing about your adversary. And unless your adversary is the topic of the debate, you have committed a fallacy.

I never claimed he was.

Hilarious that you use an ad hominem fallacy to try to chastize me that I don’t know the meaning of an ad hominem fallacy!

 

I guess thats what happens when Democrats get caught by the Senate falsifying evidence and trying to get the Senate to investigate their fake impeachment they spent all of 72 days on.
Idiots

 

You mean the investigations where the two top investigators just resigned over their hurt feelings because the DA wouldn't go to a grand jury with their garbage evidence?
Du Du Dunt Dunt Dunt
Another one bites the dust
Dunt Dunt Dunt
Another one bites the dust
And another ones gone and another ones gone, Another one bites the dust lol

 

Cute quote, no investigations? They came after him with pitchforks during his entire presidency. The reason you heard of "no investigations" was because they couldn't find anything. Come on man, really.

 

Also the reason they "tried and failed" to impeach him twice was so he couldn't run again. You can't run a crooked leadership if the president was going to drain the swamp. What's sad is people still think the rest of our government is honest.

 

Best to learn what you use:

Definition and Examples of an Ad Hominem Fallacy
The Logical Fallacy of Argumentum
By Richard Nordquist
Updated on October 27, 2018
Ad hominem is a logical fallacy that involves a personal attack: an argument based on the perceived failings of an adversary rather than on the merits of the case. In short, it's when your rebuttal to an opponent's position is an irrelevant attack on the opponent personally rather than the subject at hand, to discredit the position by discrediting its supporter. It translates as "against the man."

The ad hominem attack IS the fallacy. That just mean false.
Going off topic is not an ad hominem.
Nor is speculation.
Personal attack is.
He didn't attack you. He surmised, speculated what you would do/say/think.

I don't like it because it is full of what is called "whatiffery" and carries no weight in reality but it is not ad hom.

Using an ad hominem fallacy pulls the public's attention off the real issue and serves only as a distraction. In some contexts it's unethical. It's also called argumentum ad hominem, abusive ad hominem, poisoning the well, ad personam, and mudslinging. The attacks serve as red herrings to try to discredit or blunt the opponent's argument or make the public ignore it—it's not just a personal attack but one stated as a counterattack to the position.

Using an ad hominem fallacy pulls the public's attention off the real issue and serves only as a distraction. In some contexts it's unethical. It's also called argumentum ad hominem, abusive ad hominem, poisoning the well, ad personam, and mudslinging. The attacks serve as red herrings to try to discredit or blunt the opponent's argument or make the public ignore it—it's not just a personal attack but one stated as a counterattack to the position.

 

Thank you for the citation and for disproving your own argument.

 

And thanks for your reply which was taken out of context of the article as a whole.
No one insulted you personally. Is that easier?

 

I think all the media do a pretty good job with news facts. But when it comes to political agenda, you need to have a large salt shaker.

 

That wasn't racist. It was a questioning of where Obama was born.