GOP senators are skeptical damaged Trump can win in 2024

[Ross Dolan]

That denies human nature and uses Kafkatrapping, a logical fallacy (only the guilty deny their guilt)...

Only the guilty CAN deny their guilt. If someone is not guilty...there is no guilt to deny. They might deny false accusations of guilt, but they cannot deny their guilt if they are not guilty. So only the guilty deny their guilt...is not a logical fallacy.

 

[Ross Dolan]

what does THAT have to do with her as a wannabe dictator? NOTHING!!!!

so stop deflecting

How anyone who is not condemning Trump on an hourly basis can possibly talk about Hillary Clinton being a wanna-be dictator...

...can only be attributed to morbid stupidity.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

How anyone who is not condemning Trump on an hourly basis can possibly talk about Hillary Clinton being a wanna-be dictator...

...can only be attributed to morbid stupidity.

blah blah blah.....the problem with idiot leftists is that if someone doesn't behave just like they do, they are somehow 'trumpers'..........that makes you a moron.

 

[Ross Dolan]

blah blah blah.....the problem with idiot leftists is that if someone doesn't behave just like they do, they are somehow 'trumpers'..........that makes you a moron.

Did someone say you are a "trumper?"

You asshole...the last thing in the world YOU should be calling someone else is...a moron.

 

[T. A. Gardner]

The Republicans were invited, they refused.

The co-chair of the committee is a Republican.

Wrong! The Republicans submitted their choices and Pelosi refused to seat them. She demanded the Republicans choose different people. The Republicans refused at that point because, in over 150 years of tradition, each party got to choose freely who they put on what committee. At that point, Pelosi, fully realizing that without any Republicans on the committee that it would be blatantly obvious it was a witch hunt and show trial, found two Republicans--the two most anti-Trump least party following--that would agree to be on the committee, Cheney and Kinzinger.
She now had a committee that was fully committed to putting on a trial, hearing, whatever-you-want-to-call-it, that would reach the conclusion the committee was committed to finding right from the beginning. It's pure Kafka mixed with a little bit of Stalin.

 

[T. A. Gardner]

Only the guilty CAN deny their guilt. If someone is not guilty...there is no guilt to deny. They might deny false accusations of guilt, but they cannot deny their guilt if they are not guilty. So only the guilty deny their guilt...is not a logical fallacy.

The fallacy called kafkatrapping doesn’t represent an argument as much as it represents an accusation. Named after the famous Franz Kafka’s novel The Trial in which the main character is accused of an unknown crime. The only evidence is his denial of guilt.

The fallacy occurs not with the accusation but with the verdict. Accusing someone of something is not that dangerous, the accused has a chance to defend himself or ignore the accusation. Supporting the accusation with the denial of guilt by the accused is a fallacious argument. Therefore, the fallacy occurs.

Although kafkatrapping is absurd, it happens more than one might think in today’s society. As the civilization becomes more aware of the political, sex and racial issues, kafkatrapping is quite common. The instant someone tries to deny the accusations of sexism or racism, the accusers conclude that the person is guilty. The whole point of Kafka’s novel is to note this absurdity.

https://listoffallacies.com/kafkatrapping/

You just made the classic argument for a Kafka trap. One's guilt or innocence isn't at issue in Kafkatrapping. You are GUILTY regardless. Your testimony at a trial is just for show--going through the motions, following procedure. If you are innocent and proclaim such, you are still guilty just denying / lying about it. If you are guilty and proclaim your innocence, you are equally guilty.

If someone refuses to testify in their own defense, or about another, they too are guilty. Doesn't matter what their motivation for refusing is, the conclusion and outcome are predetermined by the court or accuser.

 

[Jarod]

what does THAT have to do with her as a wannabe dictator? NOTHING!!!!

so stop deflecting

I want to be dictator would not concede.

 

[Jarod]

Wrong! The Republicans submitted their choices and Pelosi refused to seat them. She demanded the Republicans choose different people. The Republicans refused at that point because, in over 150 years of tradition, each party got to choose freely who they put on what committee. At that point, Pelosi, fully realizing that without any Republicans on the committee that it would be blatantly obvious it was a witch hunt and show trial, found two Republicans--the two most anti-Trump least party following--that would agree to be on the committee, Cheney and Kinzinger.
She now had a committee that was fully committed to putting on a trial, hearing, whatever-you-want-to-call-it, that would reach the conclusion the committee was committed to finding right from the beginning. It's pure Kafka mixed with a little bit of Stalin.

Correct, they could have chosen different people, they were not banned from participating, in fact the co-chair is a Republican!

 

[Ross Dolan]

The fallacy called kafkatrapping doesn’t represent an argument as much as it represents an accusation. Named after the famous Franz Kafka’s novel The Trial in which the main character is accused of an unknown crime. The only evidence is his denial of guilt.

The fallacy occurs not with the accusation but with the verdict. Accusing someone of something is not that dangerous, the accused has a chance to defend himself or ignore the accusation. Supporting the accusation with the denial of guilt by the accused is a fallacious argument. Therefore, the fallacy occurs.

Although kafkatrapping is absurd, it happens more than one might think in today’s society. As the civilization becomes more aware of the political, sex and racial issues, kafkatrapping is quite common. The instant someone tries to deny the accusations of sexism or racism, the accusers conclude that the person is guilty. The whole point of Kafka’s novel is to note this absurdity.

https://listoffallacies.com/kafkatrapping/

You just made the classic argument for a Kafka trap. One's guilt or innocence isn't at issue in Kafkatrapping. You are GUILTY regardless. Your testimony at a trial is just for show--going through the motions, following procedure. If you are innocent and proclaim such, you are still guilty just denying / lying about it. If you are guilty and proclaim your innocence, you are equally guilty.

If someone refuses to testify in their own defense, or about another, they too are guilty. Doesn't matter what their motivation for refusing is, the conclusion and outcome are predetermined by the court or accuser.

I am not talking about that. If someone does not testify...I DO NOT ASSUME GUILT.

What I am talking about are the words, "Only the guilty can deny their guilt."

There is no way a person who is NOT GUILTY of something can deny their guilt in the matter. They can, as I said, deny the accusation.

But whoever supposed that there is something wrong or fallacious about the comment, "Only the guilty can deny their guilt" ...IS WRONG.

 

[T. A. Gardner]

Correct, they could have chosen different people, they were not banned from participating, in fact the co-chair is a Republican!

Now you start off offering a Hobson's Choice. Let's say they do, and Pelosi doesn't like the new choices. How many times will the Republicans have to choose until they pick the only the candidates Pelosi wants or likes? That's no choice at all thus, a Hobson's Choice.

As for your last part, that too is just a variant of the ergo decedo (false critic) fallacy. That is, Cheney was predisposed to side with the Democrats on the committee as to the outcome and placed as co-chair only to give a fig leaf of pretend bipartisanship to the committee when she and it are anything but.

 

[gfm7175]

So why my dear, are Trump and DeSantis running so close in polling, after Trump had a huge lead not so long ago?

They aren't. Trump polls way above DeSantis...

 

[Jarod]

Now you start off offering a Hobson's Choice. Let's say they do, and Pelosi doesn't like the new choices. How many times will the Republicans have to choose until they pick the only the candidates Pelosi wants or likes? That's no choice at all thus, a Hobson's Choice.

As for your last part, that too is just a variant of the ergo decedo (false critic) fallacy. That is, Cheney was predisposed to side with the Democrats on the committee as to the outcome and placed as co-chair only to give a fig leaf of pretend bipartisanship to the committee when she and it are anything but.

The more times they chose and the choice was rejected, the stronger the Republicans case would have been. They chose jokers who only obstruct, not people who cared about truth, so I am glad they were rejected. Gym Jordan, really?

 

[T. A. Gardner]

The more times they chose and the choice was rejected, the stronger the Republicans case would have been. They chose jokers who only obstruct, not people who cared about truth, so I am glad they were rejected. Gym Jordan, really?

Having it rejected once in the face of a long-standing tradition and rules of the House was sufficient. Repetition is only necessary to try and convince those that are implacable skeptics, so would accomplish nothing. By the way, you are an implacable skeptic here.

The last part, naming names, is just an attempt to poison the well.

 

[Ross Dolan]

Wrong! The Republicans submitted their choices and Pelosi refused to seat them. She demanded the Republicans choose different people. The Republicans refused at that point because, in over 150 years of tradition, each party got to choose freely who they put on what committee. At that point, Pelosi, fully realizing that without any Republicans on the committee that it would be blatantly obvious it was a witch hunt and show trial, found two Republicans--the two most anti-Trump least party following--that would agree to be on the committee, Cheney and Kinzinger.
She now had a committee that was fully committed to putting on a trial, hearing, whatever-you-want-to-call-it, that would reach the conclusion the committee was committed to finding right from the beginning. It's pure Kafka mixed with a little bit of Stalin.

The Republicans could have nominated five or six more people, but they are serial fuck-ups...and instead refused to be involved.

That worked out great. Trump is very happy with what has happened.

 

[Ross Dolan]

Now you start off offering a Hobson's Choice. Let's say they do, and Pelosi doesn't like the new choices. How many times will the Republicans have to choose until they pick the only the candidates Pelosi wants or likes? That's no choice at all thus, a Hobson's Choice.

As for your last part, that too is just a variant of the ergo decedo (false critic) fallacy. That is, Cheney was predisposed to side with the Democrats on the committee as to the outcome and placed as co-chair only to give a fig leaf of pretend bipartisanship to the committee when she and it are anything but.

Wow...you are really stupid.

SHE IS A REPUBLICAN.

So is Kinsinger.

The committee is not a pretend bipartisan committee...it is a BIPARTISAN COMMITTEE.

Doing a great job, too.

 

[Ross Dolan]

The more times they chose and the choice was rejected, the stronger the Republicans case would have been. They chose jokers who only obstruct, not people who cared about truth, so I am glad they were rejected. Gym Jordan, really?

AMEN!

 

[Ross Dolan]

Having it rejected once in the face of a long-standing tradition and rules of the House was sufficient. Repetition is only necessary to try and convince those that are implacable skeptics, so would accomplish nothing. By the way, you are an implacable skeptic here.

The last part, naming names, is just an attempt to poison the well.

I'm sure you protested as much as you are now when McConnell refused to even hold hearings on the nomination of Garland because it was ten months before an election...

...but rushed through the nomination of Barrett a month before an election.

You people are sick!

 

[Jarod]

Having it rejected once in the face of a long-standing tradition and rules of the House was sufficient. Repetition is only necessary to try and convince those that are implacable skeptics, so would accomplish nothing. By the way, you are an implacable skeptic here.

The last part, naming names, is just an attempt to poison the well.

I disagree, if you want the truth you cannot have Gym Jordan on the committee.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

I disagree, if you want the truth you cannot have Gym Jordan on the committee.

Jordan is another politician who violated his oath by lying about the election and his support for a pedophiliac demagogue.

 

[Jarod]

Jordan is another politician who violated his oath by lying about the election and his support for a pedophiliac demagogue.

You cant have someone who was a part of what you are investigating, on the committee that is investigating it.