Just because it’s a red state doesn’t mean everyone there supports Trump. AOC and Bernie definitely have passionate followings, and they can fill venues - but that kind of enthusiasm doesn’t always translate into broad, general-election support. If you polled random voters - especially outside of activist circles - both are often seen as being on the political fringe. I actually think Bernie might have had a real shot if he wasn’t 300 years old and the democrats didn’t conspire against him, but with AOC, I think her public image is already too polarizing to win over the kinds of voters Democrats would need to flip. If anything, I’d imagine the MAGA crowd would love for her to be the nominee because they know how easy it would be to rally their base against her.
Yes you are. Instead of engaging with the content of my argument, you’re attempting to discredit it by implying I’m parroting a biased media outlet - suggesting my view is invalid not because of its reasoning, but because of its supposed origin or alignment. It’s a bad faith logical fallacy meant to undermine credibility without addressing the substance.
Then engage with the discussion??? It’s very frustrating reading your comments actively shutting down discourse.
Here I’ll do it for you:
I disagree with @opinionhaver because I think that filling stadiums in red and swing states is a tangible metric that is at least correlated with general election support. I think that Trump is even more polarizing than AOC, and so her polarization isn’t as much of an issue as they make it out to be.
There. Now we find out how substantial their position is when they defend it, instead of just crying about talking points
Repeating incorrect and intentionally obtuse cable news talking points is more disingenuous and misleading than anything I’ve posted. Hate to break it to ya
I’m not going to engage with lies especially when the commenters don’t even realize they are lying by repeating the cable news talking points
So… no… I’m not going to do as you suggest because I refute your framing
If they are incorrect, lying, and don’t realize it, but still arguing in good faith, then their arguments will fall short when challenged. If they are arguing in bad faith, then it’s a different story.
I’ll admit the claims they made are perhaps overly broad and difficult to challenge, but it is entirely within the realm of possibility that they can back it up with examples / evidence.
Jumping straight to calling them out is pretty disingenuous. Even if their points are more disingenuous and misleading, you shouldn’t be fighting fallacy with another fallacy.
Just because it’s a red state doesn’t mean everyone there supports Trump. AOC and Bernie definitely have passionate followings, and they can fill venues - but that kind of enthusiasm doesn’t always translate into broad, general-election support. If you polled random voters - especially outside of activist circles - both are often seen as being on the political fringe. I actually think Bernie might have had a real shot if he wasn’t 300 years old and the democrats didn’t conspire against him, but with AOC, I think her public image is already too polarizing to win over the kinds of voters Democrats would need to flip. If anything, I’d imagine the MAGA crowd would love for her to be the nominee because they know how easy it would be to rally their base against her.
Are you a host on msnbc or cnn?
Classic ad hominem. Easier to mock the messenger than deal with the message, I guess.
Not attacking you, but you are definitely just repeating talking points of cable news… sorry if that upsets you
Yes you are. Instead of engaging with the content of my argument, you’re attempting to discredit it by implying I’m parroting a biased media outlet - suggesting my view is invalid not because of its reasoning, but because of its supposed origin or alignment. It’s a bad faith logical fallacy meant to undermine credibility without addressing the substance.
To be fair. Corporate media also pushes narratives whether they are true or not, much like your made up point
Then engage with the discussion??? It’s very frustrating reading your comments actively shutting down discourse.
Here I’ll do it for you: I disagree with @opinionhaver because I think that filling stadiums in red and swing states is a tangible metric that is at least correlated with general election support. I think that Trump is even more polarizing than AOC, and so her polarization isn’t as much of an issue as they make it out to be.
There. Now we find out how substantial their position is when they defend it, instead of just crying about talking points
Repeating incorrect and intentionally obtuse cable news talking points is more disingenuous and misleading than anything I’ve posted. Hate to break it to ya
I’m not going to engage with lies especially when the commenters don’t even realize they are lying by repeating the cable news talking points
So… no… I’m not going to do as you suggest because I refute your framing
If they are incorrect, lying, and don’t realize it, but still arguing in good faith, then their arguments will fall short when challenged. If they are arguing in bad faith, then it’s a different story.
I’ll admit the claims they made are perhaps overly broad and difficult to challenge, but it is entirely within the realm of possibility that they can back it up with examples / evidence.
Jumping straight to calling them out is pretty disingenuous. Even if their points are more disingenuous and misleading, you shouldn’t be fighting fallacy with another fallacy.