Replies

No. A strawman argument would be if I took a point of contention someone else MADE, then twisted it and exaggerated it to a point of near characature, then defeated THAT false-argument. Since I wasnt twisting anyone else’s contention, strawman is not a vallid criticism.

For example if someone took Trump’s comments on illegal immigration, and twisted them to mean Trump is anti immigrant, then proved diversity and legal immigration is beneficial to America as proof Trump is wrong.

“Trump is a racist, this country will never elect a racist.”
“Cruz is a Canadian, this country will never elect a Canadian.”
“Richard uses strawman arguments, therefore I’m correct.”

That’s a strawman argument, twisting someone else’s words or creating a false narrative to create an argument you can win, then “defeating” that false-argument.

I may be premature in my prediction, Trump may implode, it takes more than money to win (just ask Steve Forbes and Perot.) but I did not intentionally employ sophistry to win an argument, I was merely trying to predict the future based on my honest observations of the present.

As a fan of Cruz, Paul, and Rubio I wouldn’t be disappointed with either, so you may be right, and that wouldn’t be a bad thing for me. I object to you saying I created a strawman though, to me that’s equivalent of calling me a liar or a deceiver. (I may be full of shit, but I’m not an intentional deceiver.)

Right now, the prevailing wisdom is Bush is unbeatable, Trump a sideshow- (look at the gambling lines on our election to see the odds on anyone but Jeb and Hillary.) I honestly believe Trump has a real shot at beating Jeb, but if Jeb wins, because the old-back-room-Republican-elite machinery shuts him down, I believe Tump runs as a third party candidate. (And might win.)