Are There Any Intelligent Trump Followers?

[Soggy in NOLA]

Anyone supporting Bernie cannot be by definition, all that intelligent.

A characteristically Trump like response.

I am not a Trump supporter kid...

That puts you at least a couple of IQ points ahead of some.

I am more than a few IQ point above most buddy.

Based on subsequent posts in this thread there doesn't seem to be any evidence to support that theory.

Well, that's good, because it is no theory.

 

[Liminal]

A characteristically Trump like response.

I am not a Trump supporter kid...

That puts you at least a couple of IQ points ahead of some.

I am more than a few IQ point above most buddy.

Based on subsequent posts in this thread there doesn't seem to be any evidence to support that theory.

Well, that's good, because it is no theory.

I guess I'll just have to take your word for that.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

I am not a Trump supporter kid...

That puts you at least a couple of IQ points ahead of some.

I am more than a few IQ point above most buddy.

Based on subsequent posts in this thread there doesn't seem to be any evidence to support that theory.

Well, that's good, because it is no theory.

I guess I'll just have to take your word for that.

 

[Liminal]

That puts you at least a couple of IQ points ahead of some.

I am more than a few IQ point above most buddy.

Based on subsequent posts in this thread there doesn't seem to be any evidence to support that theory.

Well, that's good, because it is no theory.

I guess I'll just have to take your word for that.

Probably your most eloquent rebuttal.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

I am more than a few IQ point above most buddy.

Based on subsequent posts in this thread there doesn't seem to be any evidence to support that theory.

Well, that's good, because it is no theory.

I guess I'll just have to take your word for that.

Probably your most eloquent rebuttal.

What is it with you?

 

[Liminal]

Based on subsequent posts in this thread there doesn't seem to be any evidence to support that theory.

Well, that's good, because it is no theory.

I guess I'll just have to take your word for that.

Probably your most eloquent rebuttal.

What is it with you?

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

Well, that's good, because it is no theory.

I guess I'll just have to take your word for that.

Probably your most eloquent rebuttal.

What is it with you?

I think you're nuttier than a squirrel's turd. But harmless.

 

[Liminal]

 

[basquebromance]

JON VOIGHT HAS ENDORSED TRUMP!

 

[Liminal]

JON VOIGHT HAS ENDORSED TRUMP!

Earth shattering news. Just imagine the demographic shift.

 

[rcfieldz]

What does Jon Voight have to profit by endorsing Trump?

 

[Correll]

Perhaps if you had asked more questions before instead of self servingly dismissing my previous posts, you could have saved yourself 40 pages of mistaken postings.

I give up. There's no hope for you.

You've said nothing to point out why my reasons are not intelligent or true.

(my point regarding lack of political record was in relation to demonstrating past political behavior to judge him by).

You immediately roll into why you disagree, along with constant unsupported assertions.

That is moving the goal posts.

"Giving up" is obviously code for "dodge".

Code? No, this is in plain language. I give up because I've humored you far too long already. You're too stupid, you can't be taught, you have no potential for learning, and that pretty well describes most dumbshit Trump followers.

Nonsense.

You've said nothing to point out why my reasons are not intelligent or true.

What you are doing there is nothing but the Logical Fallacy of Proof by Assertion.

Proof by assertion - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"Proof by assertion, sometimes informally referred to as proof by repeated assertion, is an informal fallacy in which a proposition is repeatedly restated regardless of contradiction.[1] Sometimes, this may be repeated until challenges dry up, at which point it is asserted as fact due to its not being contradicted (argumentum ad nauseam).[2] In other cases, its repetition may be cited as evidence of its truth, in a variant of the appeal to authority or appeal to belieffallacies.[citation needed]

This fallacy is sometimes used as a form of rhetoric by politicians, or during a debate as a filibuster. In its extreme form, it can also be a form of brainwashing.[1]Modern politics contains many examples of proof by assertions. This practice can be observed in the use of political slogans, and the distribution of "talking points", which are collections of short phrases that are issued to members of modern political parties for recitation to achieve maximum message repetition."

You still don't get it. You have yet to make a single intelligent remark about anything. If I could point out something you said that was smart that might stand out.

My stated reasons were quite intelligent. You certainly were not able to point out any flaws in my reasoning.

Nor did you address my point that what you are engaged in is the Logical Fallacy of Proof by Assertion.

You are being dishonest and rude.

 

[Liminal]

I give up. There's no hope for you.

You've said nothing to point out why my reasons are not intelligent or true.

(my point regarding lack of political record was in relation to demonstrating past political behavior to judge him by).

You immediately roll into why you disagree, along with constant unsupported assertions.

That is moving the goal posts.

"Giving up" is obviously code for "dodge".

Code? No, this is in plain language. I give up because I've humored you far too long already. You're too stupid, you can't be taught, you have no potential for learning, and that pretty well describes most dumbshit Trump followers.

Nonsense.

You've said nothing to point out why my reasons are not intelligent or true.

What you are doing there is nothing but the Logical Fallacy of Proof by Assertion.

Proof by assertion - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"Proof by assertion, sometimes informally referred to as proof by repeated assertion, is an informal fallacy in which a proposition is repeatedly restated regardless of contradiction.[1] Sometimes, this may be repeated until challenges dry up, at which point it is asserted as fact due to its not being contradicted (argumentum ad nauseam).[2] In other cases, its repetition may be cited as evidence of its truth, in a variant of the appeal to authority or appeal to belieffallacies.[citation needed]

This fallacy is sometimes used as a form of rhetoric by politicians, or during a debate as a filibuster. In its extreme form, it can also be a form of brainwashing.[1]Modern politics contains many examples of proof by assertions. This practice can be observed in the use of political slogans, and the distribution of "talking points", which are collections of short phrases that are issued to members of modern political parties for recitation to achieve maximum message repetition."

You still don't get it. You have yet to make a single intelligent remark about anything. If I could point out something you said that was smart that might stand out.

My stated reasons were quite intelligent. You certainly were not able to point out any flaws in my reasoning.

Nor did you address my point that what you are engaged in is the Logical Fallacy of Proof by Assertion.

You are being dishonest and rude.

Just keep repeating that to yourself and you can make it come true.

 

[Correll]

You've said nothing to point out why my reasons are not intelligent or true.

(my point regarding lack of political record was in relation to demonstrating past political behavior to judge him by).

You immediately roll into why you disagree, along with constant unsupported assertions.

That is moving the goal posts.

"Giving up" is obviously code for "dodge".

Code? No, this is in plain language. I give up because I've humored you far too long already. You're too stupid, you can't be taught, you have no potential for learning, and that pretty well describes most dumbshit Trump followers.

Nonsense.

You've said nothing to point out why my reasons are not intelligent or true.

What you are doing there is nothing but the Logical Fallacy of Proof by Assertion.

Proof by assertion - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"Proof by assertion, sometimes informally referred to as proof by repeated assertion, is an informal fallacy in which a proposition is repeatedly restated regardless of contradiction.[1] Sometimes, this may be repeated until challenges dry up, at which point it is asserted as fact due to its not being contradicted (argumentum ad nauseam).[2] In other cases, its repetition may be cited as evidence of its truth, in a variant of the appeal to authority or appeal to belieffallacies.[citation needed]

This fallacy is sometimes used as a form of rhetoric by politicians, or during a debate as a filibuster. In its extreme form, it can also be a form of brainwashing.[1]Modern politics contains many examples of proof by assertions. This practice can be observed in the use of political slogans, and the distribution of "talking points", which are collections of short phrases that are issued to members of modern political parties for recitation to achieve maximum message repetition."

You still don't get it. You have yet to make a single intelligent remark about anything. If I could point out something you said that was smart that might stand out.

My stated reasons were quite intelligent. You certainly were not able to point out any flaws in my reasoning.

Nor did you address my point that what you are engaged in is the Logical Fallacy of Proof by Assertion.

You are being dishonest and rude.

Just keep repeating that to yourself and you can make it come true.

And still no serious criticism of my offered reasons, nor any response to my accusation of you arguing by Logical Fallacy.

 

[Liminal]

Code? No, this is in plain language. I give up because I've humored you far too long already. You're too stupid, you can't be taught, you have no potential for learning, and that pretty well describes most dumbshit Trump followers.

Nonsense.

You've said nothing to point out why my reasons are not intelligent or true.

What you are doing there is nothing but the Logical Fallacy of Proof by Assertion.

Proof by assertion - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"Proof by assertion, sometimes informally referred to as proof by repeated assertion, is an informal fallacy in which a proposition is repeatedly restated regardless of contradiction.[1] Sometimes, this may be repeated until challenges dry up, at which point it is asserted as fact due to its not being contradicted (argumentum ad nauseam).[2] In other cases, its repetition may be cited as evidence of its truth, in a variant of the appeal to authority or appeal to belieffallacies.[citation needed]

This fallacy is sometimes used as a form of rhetoric by politicians, or during a debate as a filibuster. In its extreme form, it can also be a form of brainwashing.[1]Modern politics contains many examples of proof by assertions. This practice can be observed in the use of political slogans, and the distribution of "talking points", which are collections of short phrases that are issued to members of modern political parties for recitation to achieve maximum message repetition."

You still don't get it. You have yet to make a single intelligent remark about anything. If I could point out something you said that was smart that might stand out.

My stated reasons were quite intelligent. You certainly were not able to point out any flaws in my reasoning.

Nor did you address my point that what you are engaged in is the Logical Fallacy of Proof by Assertion.

You are being dishonest and rude.

Just keep repeating that to yourself and you can make it come true.

And still no serious criticism of my offered reasons, nor any response to my accusation of you arguing by Logical Fallacy.

Just imagine what you might have been capable of achieving if you had been just a little smarter.

 

[Correll]

Nonsense.

You've said nothing to point out why my reasons are not intelligent or true.

What you are doing there is nothing but the Logical Fallacy of Proof by Assertion.

Proof by assertion - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"Proof by assertion, sometimes informally referred to as proof by repeated assertion, is an informal fallacy in which a proposition is repeatedly restated regardless of contradiction.[1] Sometimes, this may be repeated until challenges dry up, at which point it is asserted as fact due to its not being contradicted (argumentum ad nauseam).[2] In other cases, its repetition may be cited as evidence of its truth, in a variant of the appeal to authority or appeal to belieffallacies.[citation needed]

This fallacy is sometimes used as a form of rhetoric by politicians, or during a debate as a filibuster. In its extreme form, it can also be a form of brainwashing.[1]Modern politics contains many examples of proof by assertions. This practice can be observed in the use of political slogans, and the distribution of "talking points", which are collections of short phrases that are issued to members of modern political parties for recitation to achieve maximum message repetition."

You still don't get it. You have yet to make a single intelligent remark about anything. If I could point out something you said that was smart that might stand out.

My stated reasons were quite intelligent. You certainly were not able to point out any flaws in my reasoning.

Nor did you address my point that what you are engaged in is the Logical Fallacy of Proof by Assertion.

You are being dishonest and rude.

Just keep repeating that to yourself and you can make it come true.

And still no serious criticism of my offered reasons, nor any response to my accusation of you arguing by Logical Fallacy.

Just imagine what you might have been capable of achieving if you had been just a little smarter.

Switching over to the Logical Fallacy of Appeal to Ridicule does not change the fact that my stated reasons were quite

intelligent. You certainly were not able to point out any flaws in my reasoning.

Nor did you address my point that what you are engaged with this thread, is the Logical Fallacy of Proof by Assertion.

 

[Liminal]

You still don't get it. You have yet to make a single intelligent remark about anything. If I could point out something you said that was smart that might stand out.

My stated reasons were quite intelligent. You certainly were not able to point out any flaws in my reasoning.

Nor did you address my point that what you are engaged in is the Logical Fallacy of Proof by Assertion.

You are being dishonest and rude.

Just keep repeating that to yourself and you can make it come true.

And still no serious criticism of my offered reasons, nor any response to my accusation of you arguing by Logical Fallacy.

Just imagine what you might have been capable of achieving if you had been just a little smarter.

Switching over to the Logical Fallacy of Appeal to Ridicule does not change the fact that my stated reasons were quite

intelligent. You certainly were not able to point out any flaws in my reasoning.

Nor did you address my point that what you are engaged with this thread, is the Logical Fallacy of Proof by Assertion.

The problem you're having is: You've failed utterly to make any salient points or even mildly intriguing insights about anything. You have no intelligent posts to point to.

 

[Correll]

My stated reasons were quite intelligent. You certainly were not able to point out any flaws in my reasoning.

Nor did you address my point that what you are engaged in is the Logical Fallacy of Proof by Assertion.

You are being dishonest and rude.

Just keep repeating that to yourself and you can make it come true.

And still no serious criticism of my offered reasons, nor any response to my accusation of you arguing by Logical Fallacy.

Just imagine what you might have been capable of achieving if you had been just a little smarter.

Switching over to the Logical Fallacy of Appeal to Ridicule does not change the fact that my stated reasons were quite

intelligent. You certainly were not able to point out any flaws in my reasoning.

Nor did you address my point that what you are engaged with this thread, is the Logical Fallacy of Proof by Assertion.

The problem you're having is: You've failed utterly to make any salient points or even mildly intriguing insights about anything. You have no intelligent posts to point to.

And more unsupported assertions.

 

[Liminal]

Just keep repeating that to yourself and you can make it come true.

And still no serious criticism of my offered reasons, nor any response to my accusation of you arguing by Logical Fallacy.

Just imagine what you might have been capable of achieving if you had been just a little smarter.

Switching over to the Logical Fallacy of Appeal to Ridicule does not change the fact that my stated reasons were quite

intelligent. You certainly were not able to point out any flaws in my reasoning.

Nor did you address my point that what you are engaged with this thread, is the Logical Fallacy of Proof by Assertion.

The problem you're having is: You've failed utterly to make any salient points or even mildly intriguing insights about anything. You have no intelligent posts to point to.

And more unsupported assertions.

I've already dispensed with one of your little jewels as a classic example of a logical fallacy. You still can't articulate why you believe Trump will do what he says, not with anything that anyone would find compelling anyway..

 

[Correll]

And still no serious criticism of my offered reasons, nor any response to my accusation of you arguing by Logical Fallacy.

Just imagine what you might have been capable of achieving if you had been just a little smarter.

Switching over to the Logical Fallacy of Appeal to Ridicule does not change the fact that my stated reasons were quite

intelligent. You certainly were not able to point out any flaws in my reasoning.

Nor did you address my point that what you are engaged with this thread, is the Logical Fallacy of Proof by Assertion.

The problem you're having is: You've failed utterly to make any salient points or even mildly intriguing insights about anything. You have no intelligent posts to point to.

And more unsupported assertions.

I've already dispensed with one of your little jewels as a classic example of a logical fallacy. You still can't articulate why you believe Trump will do what he says, not with anything that anyone would find compelling anyway..

And now you are moving the Goal Posts.

I already explained why I considered Trump more likely to "do" the policies that I support, compared to the other candidates.