(06-23-2020 01:47 AM)mrbig Wrote:  Additionally, I think we can agree that a Trumpbot (or really most uses of "bot" in similar circumstances) suggests that a person agrees/defends that individual (or party) in virtually all circumstances by parroting the same arguments.

If that is the working definition, then please explain how any one of three people who did not vote for Donald Trump can possibly be considered a "Ttrumpbot." Use of the term "parroting" implies an unthinking knee-jerk response, rather than a reasoned and thoughtful analysis of the facts and issues.

Quote:This whole discussion kicked off with me noting "that I often found the tone and substance of many of the arguments made here by the “non-Trumpbots” to be indistinguishable from the MAGA-hat wearing crowd or the Fox and Friends folks.

Perhaps because those are legitimate arguments. I find this troubling feeling on the left (being expressed if not genuinely felt, since I have no way to determine the latter) that the only truth lies in positions held by the left, and any departure form those positions is because the departer is "deplorable" or some kind of unthinking "bot."

Quote:
... I found this to be particularly true during discussions about impeachment, Kavanaugh, Charlottesville/very fine people...." I made that comment before 69/70/75's post (which was about Kavanaugh) so my glib response was merely a reaffirmation of what I had already written - that on this specific topic (but not on all topics), 69/70/75 was saying the same kind of things I would expect from Fox & Friends. That doesn't mean he "takes his marching orders from Fox & Friends", it means his argument on that specific issue is basically indistinguishable. Which is exactly what I wrote before 69/70/75's comment or my glib response.

Perhaps the reason they are "indistinguishable" is because they are valid and obvious points. There is certainly ample basis upon which to conclude that the impeachment process and the Kavanaugh confirmation opposition were political hatchet jobs which went far beyond anything that any reasonably competent evidence would support. As far as Charlottesville, the "fine people" is a poor choice of words. Would it have been better if Trump had said there were some bad people on both sides? I think so, much better, and entirely accurate. But wait, he did, a few moments earlier, as part of essentially the same quote. But did that get quoted? Of course not, not by MSM who put agenda ahead of accurate and objective reporting.

The way to contest a point is not to try to create some guilt by association by pointing out that it is "indistinguishable" (in your mind at least) from something said by some group that you find "deeplorable." I realize that can work before some juries. But the proper way to contest a point in intelligent discussion is to provide counterpoints. Otherwise you are doing nothing but ad hominem attacks.