usmbguest5318
Gold Member
if you construct an OP with campaign is the topic and president as the subject, Then stop being a dumbass when people point out Obama did the same thing.
Since when does one person's ludicrous act justify another individual's performing the same act? Assuming Obama did hold a campaign rally after taking office, I that's equally ridiculous. I don't actually know that Obama did so, but I do know that Trump's Press Secretary -- not a third party who is not officially part of Trump's team who described the event in their own words -- Trump's paid mouthpiece on the WH staff described the upcoming event as being a campaign rally; thus Trump thinks his event is a campaign rally. Would you be good enough to show us evidence that Obama considered himself as having a campaign rally after he took office and before the commencement of the re-election process? You made the claim. I'm just asking you to back it up.
You'd have to ask a liberal, they use that logic all the time. It was not my point however. My point was the OP was constructed around a poor premise.
I don't see how you can say that. The title makes two claims -- (1) that Trump was a good campaigner and (2) he can't stop campaigning -- and the OP contains a bunch of observations -- no premises, no inferences, no conclusions, therefore not an argument -- that have nothing to with campaigning. Some of the observations presented in the OP can legitimately be used as part of an argument having to do with the nature and extent of Trump's need for adulation -- self or otherwise -- and how that need plays into Trump's personality, exposes the U.S. people to risk, and so on, but that's about it.
Even so, the OP doesn't contain an argument of any sort, thus it cannot be described accurately as having been constructed around a premise of any sort. Simply explaining or listing/noting things that someone said or did or that happened doesn't at all an argument make....I think the OP-er may have aimed to list out a set of Trump's actions and then leave it to readers to conclude that there's "something" wrong there. Maybe he was explaining his own line of thinking? I can't say for sure just where he was coming from. I can say that if one is going to ridicule another person's expressions, to oneself be credible, one must at the very least ridicule them for something they actually did.
Last edited: