The Next US President

[Pat494]

This thread has been way off topic since page 1.
So who will be the next US president??

I don't particularly like Trump, but I think he is the best of a poor republican field, and definitely better than Clinton.

Just my 2 cents.

Peter

Hillary of course. Don't you read the papers ?
C'os there is no-one else. I mean it's not a very highly paid job even and nobody sings their praises. Lawyers, builders, accountants etc. earn much more. More perks but more aggro .

 

[trendie]

The problem with the Reductio ad Hitlerum is when there is a fair comparison to be made.

If policies are proposed that seek to marginalise and demonise a specific group of people, and to constantly find reasons why the nations ills lie outside its own borders instead of within its own political structure, and/or to rely on nationalism/patriotism as a mechanism of arbitrarily defining them/us, then it may be seen as fair.

If the Donald looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, the Donald is a water-based, winged-bird.

 

[hhiusa]

The problem with the Reductio ad Hitlerum is when there is a fair comparison to be made.

If policies are proposed that seek to marginalise and demonise a specific group of people, and to constantly find reasons why the nations ills lie outside its own borders instead of within its own political structure, and/or to rely on nationalism/patriotism as a mechanism of arbitrarily defining them/us, then it may be seen as fair.

If the Donald looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, the Donald is a water-based, winged-bird.

@Pat494 brought up Nazis in relation to the conversation about Trump and Le Pen. I was pointing out that this is very common in illogical arguments, so much so that a psychological phenomenon exists around it. Once such a comparison is made, whoever mentioned the Nazis has automatically lost whatever debate was in progress. This principle is itself frequently referred to as Godwin's law. This came after Strauss's term reductio ad Hitlerum, which derives its meaning from reductio ad absurdum.

If Hitler liked neoclassical art, that means that classicism in every form is Nazi; if Hitler wanted to strengthen the German family, that makes the traditional family (and its defenders) Nazi; if Hitler spoke of the "nation" or the "folk," then any invocation of nationality, ethnicity, or even folkishness is Nazi ..."

It is still fallacious. Why bother making any arguments if you are not going to use and follow logic. The suggested rationale is one of guilt by association. This is where reductio ad absurdum comes in.

it is a tactic often used to derail arguments, because such comparisons tend to distract and anger the opponent, as Hitler and Nazism are seen as unpopular in the modern Western world.

Ducks are water-based, winged-birds; however, not all winged-birds are ducks and; thus, the argument falls apart there. Converse fallacy. Your statements only works forward not backwards. You are using the biconditional where only modus ponens works. You have stated the if P then Q, but you have disregarded any statements resembling the if Q then P to allow for a biconditional.

It is invalid if you invert the argument. If Trump walks like a duck (Wx) and quacks like a duck (Qx), then Trump is not necessarily a duck.
http://www.umsu.de/logik/trees/
\forallx(Dx\to(Qx\land Lx))\to(Dx\to(Qx\landLx))

 

[Pat494]

“When was the last time anybody saw us beating, let's say, China in a trade deal? They kill us. I beat China all the time. All the time.”

To diplomats, international trading is a give and take between two countries. To Trump, it's a win-or-die competition.

 

[trendie]

@Pat494 brought up
.....

Yes, I concede your flawless logic.
I was just taking the Mickey, and Goofing around.

Hillary for President!

 

[trendie]

@Pat494 brought up Nazis in relation to the conversation about Trump and Le Pen. I was pointing out that this is very common in illogical arguments, so much so that a psychological phenomenon exists around it. Once such a comparison is made, whoever mentioned the Nazis has automatically lost whatever debate was in progress. This principle is itself frequently referred to as Godwin's law. This came after Strauss's term reductio ad Hitlerum, which derives its meaning from reductio ad absurdum.

If Hitler liked neoclassical art, that means that classicism in every form is Nazi; if Hitler wanted to strengthen the German family, that makes the traditional family (and its defenders) Nazi; if Hitler spoke of the "nation" or the "folk," then any invocation of nationality, ethnicity, or even folkishness is Nazi ..."

It is still fallacious. Why bother making any arguments if you are not going to use and follow logic. The suggested rationale is one of guilt by association. This is where reductio ad absurdum comes in.

it is a tactic often used to derail arguments, because such comparisons tend to distract and anger the opponent, as Hitler and Nazism are seen as unpopular in the modern Western world.

Ducks are water-based, winged-birds; however, not all winged-birds are ducks and; thus, the argument falls apart there. Converse fallacy. Your statements only works forward not backwards. You are using the biconditional where only modus ponens works. You have stated the if P then Q, but you have disregarded any statements resembling the if Q then P to allow for a biconditional.

It is invalid if you invert the argument. If Trump walks like a duck (Wx) and quacks like a duck (Qx), then Trump is not necessarily a duck.
http://www.umsu.de/logik/trees/
\forallx(Dx\to(Qx\land Lx))\to(Dx\to(Qx\landLx))

If all Islamic State supporters are muslim, and IS-supporters are terrorists, can we conclude that all muslims are not necessarily terrorists?

If so, would that not show that the Donalds "ban all muslims" meme is a fallacious and illogical argument?

(nice graphic, by the way)

 

[wackypete2]

Hillary for President!

God, no.

She'll continue to destroy the country by extending Obama's policys. Remember she was part of his administration and nothing but a liar and a fake ie. benghazi and her email server scam. She lied her way around the investigations and completely bungled benghazi incident. How can anyone believe anything she says?

Like I said, I don't know that Trump would make a good president but nobody else much worth voting for. Politicians never seem to get anything done but argue with each other while many Americans struggle.

Peter

 

[hhiusa]

If all Islamic State supporters are muslim, and IS-supporters are terrorists, can we conclude that all muslims are not necessarily terrorists?

If so, would that not show that the Donalds "ban all muslims" meme is a fallacious and illogical argument?

(nice graphic, by the way)

While you have stated correctly the part in blue that I highlighted, Donalds trump's statement is normative and indeterminate. You need at least two statements to form a syllogism. To further answer your question, his statement is not based in logic, it is based in probability.

The capital letters are predicate and act as truth holder. All x's next to that predicate adopt its properties.
for all x there exists at least one x such if x is M then x is not a T or I.

Based upon the statement in blue, we can still use modal logic. The graphic uses predicate logic, which is the strongest form of logic. Modal logic works in a necessity and possibility operand. It is an even more complex form. I will illustrate it later. If something is not necessarily true, it can stil be possible that it is true using modal logic.

 

[wackypete2]

“When was the last time anybody saw us beating, let's say, China in a trade deal? They kill us. I beat China all the time. All the time.”

To diplomats, international trading is a give and take between two countries. To Trump, it's a win-or-die competition.

But with Obama or Hillary its all give and no take. Not only in trade deals but also the Iran nuclear deal. Horrible deal.

Peter

 

[hhiusa]

A proof concerning how you can go from general to more specific but not specific to more general without inductive reasoning. Inductive is reasoning in which the premises seek to supply strong evidence for (not absolute proof of) the truth of the conclusion. Predicate calculus can give absolute proof and inductive logic can give strong proof.

I still say that you can use inductive reasoning to support Trump's statement.

 

[trendie]

A proof concerning how you can go from general to more specific but not specific to more general without inductive reasoning. Inductive is reasoning in which the premises seek to supply strong evidence for (not absolute proof of) the truth of the conclusion. Predicate calculus can give absolute proof and inductive logic can give strong proof.

I still say that you can use inductive reasoning to support Trump's statement.

thats a realy, really, pretty graphic.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate

can we use your modal and inductive reasoning to prove that the greatest threat to american citizens are other american citizens, and not foreign elements?

By the way, you may be able to use logic to prove things that the Donald says, but I doubt he had any form of reasoning in mind when he makes his ill-thought and inflammatory claims, which I think, are primarily headline-grabbing.

Hillary all the way to the White House!

 

[Pat494]

Are ya ready for the next Chumpism ?
No ?
Tough - here it is

The U.S. will invite El Chapo, the Mexican drug lord who just escaped prison, to become a U.S. citizen because our "leaders" can't say no!



go go go with Hillary

 

[Pat494]

Just looking at ad Chumpy's deductive reasoning it becomes more clear why the US is hopeless at foreign policy. They think people are logical ! Well that's rubbish for a start. They think people should be reasonable or even rational ! No no not so bozos in the State Dept. and Pentagon. Neither are they machines. like robots.

They are like.......................................... people, you dummies.

 

[hhiusa]

Just looking at ad Chumpy's deductive reasoning it becomes more clear why the US is hopeless at foreign policy. They think people are logical ! Well that's rubbish for a start. They think people should be reasonable or even rational ! No no not so bozos in the State Dept. and Pentagon. Neither are they machines. like robots.

They are like.......................................... people, you dummies.

That is how childish and vindictive you are, you liked a post to say something rubbish.

I know that you think logic is rubbish as evidenced by your extraneous and poorly written post.

 

[wackypete2]

Are ya ready for the next Chumpism ?
No ?
Tough - here it is

The U.S. will invite El Chapo, the Mexican drug lord who just escaped prison, to become a U.S. citizen because our "leaders" can't say no!



go go go with Hillary

:

What makes you think Hillary will be better than Obama? She is/was part of his administration.

Peter

 

[hhiusa]

:

What makes you think Hillary will be better than Obama? She is/was part of his administration.

Peter

Which Republican will you be voting for in the primaries? How is New Joisey right now?

 

[counter_violent]

:

What makes you think Hillary will be better than Obama? She is/was part of his administration.

Peter

Truth is Pete, none of them are any use ! If they were, they would all be doing something else

We should set up a system whereby anyone who puts themselves up for office should automatically be disqualified hung drawn and quartered, buried whilst barely alive. Once dead, dug up and hung again, just to be sure.

 

[hhiusa]

Truth is Pete, none of them are any use ! If they were, they would all be doing something else

We should set up a system whereby anyone who puts themselves up for office should automatically be disqualified hung drawn and quartered, buried whilst barely alive. Once dead, dug up and hung again, just to be sure.

Back in the real and non-fascist world. Trump does not seem to be losing any support.

 

[Pat494]

:

What makes you think Hillary will be better than Obama? She is/was part of his administration.

Peter

I was thinking more that Hillary is a steadier person and with more experience than Trump, not Obama.

I think Obama has done well for America. He was unfortunate enough to follow that waster Bush and had to spend a lot of time clearing up his messes.

 

[Pat494]

If the 2 major parties had any sense at all they would find a good looking popular person to head up the party, like an actor. Let the staffers do the hard boring work and take the blame for any foul-ups. The US Presidential system is suited to this more so than European like democracies.