 |
|
Logic where oh where are you?
Posted on: August 17, 2025 at 09:44:18 CT
TigerMatt STL
Posts:
98818
Member For:
26.58 yrs
Level:
User
M.O.B. Votes:
1
1. The False Equivalence
The central premise of the article is that Barack Obama is "the new Nixon" and even "worse than Nixon." This is a false equivalence fallacy because it compares two complex political figures and events in a way that minimizes their significant differences. The author attempts to draw a parallel between the Watergate scandal (a botched burglary leading to a cover-up) and the "Russia Collusion Hoax" (a complex, multi-agency investigation), but without providing direct, verified evidence to show that Obama orchestrated the latter in a similar manner to Nixon’s cover-up. The comparison simplifies two distinct historical events to fit a pre-existing narrative.
2. Ad Hominem
The article repeatedly attacks the character and motives of Barack Obama and his political allies rather than focusing on the substance of their policies or actions.
He is called a "creature," "darling of the political left," a "silky liar," and a "narcissist."
His supporters are dismissed as "far left friends" who "incinerate" tax dollars.
The outlets that support him are labeled as "now-woke" and "legacy media," which are meant to diminish their credibility.
The author uses emotionally charged language, such as "orchestrated...like attack dogs," to paint a picture of malicious intent without presenting verifiable evidence.
3. Appeal to a Flawed Authority
The author uses Rasmussen Reports and Miranda Devine to support their claims.
The Rasmussen Reports survey is presented as definitive proof that Obama committed crimes. However, the survey only reflects voter belief that crimes were committed, not a verified legal or factual finding. This is a common logical leap where public opinion is presented as fact. The use of "66.6 percent" is a subtle rhetorical device that evokes a negative, almost demonic, association.
Miranda Devine is presented as an authority ("great NY Post columnist and best-selling author"), but her quotes are opinion-based and often rely on hearsay ("they’re talking about Obama in quite negative terms" on X), not on hard evidence.
4. Appeal to Emotion
The article is filled with emotionally charged language designed to provoke fear, anger, and a sense of betrayal in the reader.
Phrases like "incinerated $250K of Your Tax Dollars," "cloak of secrecy," and "the hateful bad Orange Man" are used to bypass a rational discussion.
The author frames the political conflict as a battle between the "people" and an elite "cabal of Deep State secret intelligence chiefs," which taps into populist resentment and distrust of institutions.
5. False Cause (Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc)
The author suggests a causal link between two events simply because one followed the other.
The article claims that because Obama’s "posse" is pushing a political figure like Zoran Mamdani, it is an act of desperation to "find relevance" and "change the subject" from the "Russia Collusion Hoax." This assumes that the call to Mamdani is a direct result of Obama's supposed scandal, when in reality, it could have been for any number of political reasons.
6. The Straw Man
The author misrepresents the views of his opponents to make them easier to attack.
The author claims that "Obama and his Democrats and media fed the American people a steady diet of hysteria about the hateful bad Orange Man." This simplifies a complex, multi-faceted debate about Trump's policies and behavior into a single, malicious motive. This misrepresentation allows the author to justify the anger of the people as a rational response to a fabricated enemy.
7. Hasty Generalization
The author uses a few pieces of anecdotal or limited evidence to draw broad, sweeping conclusions.
The author’s personal belief that "many Americans are thinking it" (that Obama is Nixon) is not supported by a rigorous, representative sample.
The author states that "if you go on X they’re talking about Obama in quite negative terms," using a single social media platform to generalize the opinions of the entire American electorate.
The central premise of the article is that Barack Obama is "the new Nixon" and even "worse than Nixon." This is a false equivalence fallacy because it compares two complex political figures and events in a way that minimizes their significant differences. The author attempts to draw a parallel between the Watergate scandal (a botched burglary leading to a cover-up) and the "Russia Collusion Hoax" (a complex, multi-agency investigation), but without providing direct, verified evidence to show that Obama orchestrated the latter in a similar manner to Nixon’s cover-up. The comparison simplifies two distinct historical events to fit a pre-existing narrative.
2. Ad Hominem
The article repeatedly attacks the character and motives of Barack Obama and his political allies rather than focusing on the substance of their policies or actions.
He is called a "creature," "darling of the political left," a "silky liar," and a "narcissist."
His supporters are dismissed as "far left friends" who "incinerate" tax dollars.
The outlets that support him are labeled as "now-woke" and "legacy media," which are meant to diminish their credibility.
The author uses emotionally charged language, such as "orchestrated...like attack dogs," to paint a picture of malicious intent without presenting verifiable evidence.
3. Appeal to a Flawed Authority
The author uses Rasmussen Reports and Miranda Devine to support their claims.
The Rasmussen Reports survey is presented as definitive proof that Obama committed crimes. However, the survey only reflects voter belief that crimes were committed, not a verified legal or factual finding. This is a common logical leap where public opinion is presented as fact. The use of "66.6 percent" is a subtle rhetorical device that evokes a negative, almost demonic, association.
Miranda Devine is presented as an authority ("great NY Post columnist and best-selling author"), but her quotes are opinion-based and often rely on hearsay ("they’re talking about Obama in quite negative terms" on X), not on hard evidence.
4. Appeal to Emotion
The article is filled with emotionally charged language designed to provoke fear, anger, and a sense of betrayal in the reader.
Phrases like "incinerated $250K of Your Tax Dollars," "cloak of secrecy," and "the hateful bad Orange Man" are used to bypass a rational discussion.
The author frames the political conflict as a battle between the "people" and an elite "cabal of Deep State secret intelligence chiefs," which taps into populist resentment and distrust of institutions.
5. False Cause (Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc)
The author suggests a causal link between two events simply because one followed the other.
The article claims that because Obama’s "posse" is pushing a political figure like Zoran Mamdani, it is an act of desperation to "find relevance" and "change the subject" from the "Russia Collusion Hoax." This assumes that the call to Mamdani is a direct result of Obama's supposed scandal, when in reality, it could have been for any number of political reasons.
6. The Straw Man
The author misrepresents the views of his opponents to make them easier to attack.
The author claims that "Obama and his Democrats and media fed the American people a steady diet of hysteria about the hateful bad Orange Man." This simplifies a complex, multi-faceted debate about Trump's policies and behavior into a single, malicious motive. This misrepresentation allows the author to justify the anger of the people as a rational response to a fabricated enemy.
7. Hasty Generalization
The author uses a few pieces of anecdotal or limited evidence to draw broad, sweeping conclusions.
The author’s personal belief that "many Americans are thinking it" (that Obama is Nixon) is not supported by a rigorous, representative sample.
The author states that "if you go on X they’re talking about Obama in quite negative terms," using a single social media platform to generalize the opinions of the entire American electorate.
Please explain why this message is being reported.
MESSAGE THREAD
Logic where oh where are you? - TigerMatt STL - 8/17 09:44:18