you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]bobbobbybob 8 insightful - 4 fun8 insightful - 3 fun9 insightful - 4 fun -  (9 children)

meanwhile the other side say: REEEEEEEE

Can you provide any examples of the OP image's statement? It sounds pretty damning, but if it is unfounded, then its just slander.

[–]34679 7 insightful - 4 fun7 insightful - 3 fun8 insightful - 4 fun -  (1 child)

I see you've started right at the top with "He didn't say that."

[–]bobbobbybob 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I think you'll find that

"can you provide evidence?"

is a long way from "he didn't say that".

One is a question, the other a statement.

[–]Jesus[S] 4 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 2 fun -  (4 children)

Just go onto the doanld and see what people are saying about his red army speech the other day. Not every conservative is falling for it though.

[–]bobbobbybob 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

I haven't seen the 'red army' speech yet. Been staying away from the swamp to focus on family

[–]Jesus[S] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

Well you should because he's the figurehead.

[–]bobbobbybob 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

he's the president, i believe.

[–]Jesus[S] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

But a figurehead nonetheless.

[–]Troy 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (1 child)

tu quoque fallacy

[–]bobbobbybob 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

first bit was a joke, retard.

'i can't into thought' fallacy. tq doesn't even fit, since 'reeeeeeeeee' doesn't equate with the original accusations against trump supporters anyway.

your logical fallacy is: "look, over there!" diversion