Huckabee Set to Announce 2016 Decision Tonight on Fox News

[Luis Gonzalez]

Is that all you have to say, Luis?

Good.

Then, somewhere inside you know I'm right, and there's no imaginary 'fallacy' involved here.  It's a phony internet argument.

Thanks for the morning cheer!

It is all I have to say because what I said was clearly evident.

It's a textbook example of the fallacy.

A. Evangelicals overwhelmingly supported Huckabee in 2008 and they do now as well.
B. Huckabee was listed as one of the top ten most corrupt politicians in the U.S. In 2007 by many groups both conservative and liberal.
C. No true Evangelical would support Huckabee.

Yet, they supported him after knowing that he was corrupt.

No True Scotsman alright

Carry on with your self-righteous indignation.

[Luis Gonzalez]

Mike Huckabee is in this race for one reason ans one reason only: to drain votes from Ted Cruz, Rick Perry or any other conservative who might catch fire with the SoCons in Iowa.  And he will be paid very handsomely to do it.

Yes.

He'll suck out millions of Evangelicals (who aren't true Evangelicals because No True Evangelical would ever support as corrupt a politico as Huckabe) from Cruz, making sure Cruz stays in the bottom of the pack. Huck will make millions and remain the Evangelicals' political darling. 

[alicewonders]

Mike Huckabee is in this race for one reason ans one reason only: to drain votes from Ted Cruz, Rick Perry or any other conservative who might catch fire with the SoCons in Iowa.  And he will be paid very handsomely to do it.

I think so too!

[240B]

We always have to keep in mind that we, as Republicans, cannot lose.

Any one of our candidates, any of them, (including Huckster, which is not my choice) will be 1000 times better than the racist, anti-American, Black Muslim Communist that we have now.

Maybe I am thinking in 'baby steps', but the first goal has to be to kick the anti-Christian, anti-Israel, anti-American, Islamist we have now out on his Black ass. And the rest of his racist, pro-Muslim 'crew' will go with him.

[musiclady]

It is all I have to say because what I said was clearly evident.

It's a textbook example of the fallacy.

A. Evangelicals overwhelmingly supported Huckabee in 2008 and they do now as well.
B. Huckabee was listed as one of the top ten most corrupt politicians in the U.S. In 2007 by many groups both conservative and liberal.
C. No true Evangelical would support Huckabee.

Yet, they supported him after knowing that he was corrupt.

No True Scotsman alright

Carry on with your self-righteous indignation.

Nothing 'self-righteous' about an accurate argument, Luis (no matter your imaginary internet arguments against it).

NO actual evangelical Christ-follower knowing that Huckabee was corrupt would support him anyway.

You're talking about gullible, ignorant people or people who don't actually believe in Christ's teachings.

No fallacy involved.  (Unless it's your own).

The desire to smear an entire group of people among some on the internet is obvious.

But it's better not to use inaccurate definitions in one's attempt to do so.

[Luis Gonzalez]

We always have to keep in mind that we, as Republicans, cannot lose.

Any one of our candidates, any of them, (including Huckster, which is not my choice) will be 1000 times better than the racist, anti-American, Black Muslim Communist that we have now.

Maybe I am thinking in 'baby steps', but the first goal has to be to kick the anti-Christian, anti-Israel, anti-American, Islamist we have now out on his Black ass. And the rest of his racist, pro-Muslim 'crew' will go with him.

Completely agree.

If the GOP nominates a tuna on rye sandwich with a side of cucumber salad in 2016 I will crawl over broken glass to vote for the ticket.

That however does not mean that I won't fight for what I believe the best GOP ticket would be.

[musiclady]

We always have to keep in mind that we, as Republicans, cannot lose.

Any one of our candidates, any of them, (including Huckster, which is not my choice) will be 1000 times better than the racist, anti-American, Black Muslim Communist that we have now.

Maybe I am thinking in 'baby steps', but the first goal has to be to kick the anti-Christian, anti-Israel, anti-American, Islamist we have now out on his Black ass. And the rest of his racist, pro-Muslim 'crew' will go with him.

Agree.

I personally think that Huckabee will either not run, or go nowhere.

Most people have seen through his charade over the years.

I think we're going to get a very strong candidate for 2016, no matter who fills in the fringes on our ballots.

[Luis Gonzalez]

Agree.

I personally think that Huckabee will either not run, or go nowhere.

Most people have seen through his charade over the years.

I think we're going to get a very strong candidate for 2016, no matter who fills in the fringes on our ballots.

Most people have seen through his charade for years, yet Evangelicals continue to make up the core of his supporters.

Cue in the "No True Evangelical" fallacy.

[Luis Gonzalez]

Nothing 'self-righteous' about an accurate argument, Luis (no matter your imaginary internet arguments against it).

NO actual evangelical Christ-follower knowing that Huckabee was corrupt would support him anyway.

You're talking about gullible, ignorant people or people who don't actually believe in Christ's teachings.

No fallacy involved.  (Unless it's your own).

The desire to smear an entire group of people among some on the internet is obvious.

But it's better not to use inaccurate definitions in one's attempt to do so.

I wasn't smearing a group of people ML.

I pointed out that you used a textbook example of a logical fallacy.

[Bigun]

We always have to keep in mind that we, as Republicans, cannot lose.

Any one of our candidates, any of them, (including Huckster, which is not my choice) will be 1000 times better than the racist, anti-American, Black Muslim Communist that we have now.

Maybe I am thinking in 'baby steps', but the first goal has to be to kick the anti-Christian, anti-Israel, anti-American, Islamist we have now out on his Black ass. And the rest of his racist, pro-Muslim 'crew' will go with him.

   and 

And re-establish the rule of LAW perhaps!

[musiclady]

I wasn't smearing a group of people ML.

I pointed out that you used a textbook example of a logical fallacy.

If you read a bit more carefully, you'll see that I didn't say that YOU were the one desiring to smear an entire group of people. (And you, indeed weren't the poster I was referring to).

You were, however, trying to support that poster by using a false argument to make that poster's case.

My accurate argument remains.  The original post to which I was responding, was hogwash.

Perhaps that is because I actually spend time with, and dialogue with evangelical Christians, and have for more than a half a century, and don't get my information about who they are from internet blogs and forums trying to discredit an entire group of people, without discernment.

[musiclady]

  and 

And re-establish the rule of LAW perhaps!

What a novel concept!   

[Luis Gonzalez]

BTW ML.

The desire to smear an entire group of people among some on the internet is obvious.

It was YOU who decided to "smear an entire group of people", not me.

It was YOU who said that an entire group of people weren't really Evangelical Christians based on your own criteria of wnat constitutes a "true" evangelical Christian.

That's you (not me) judging an entire group of people on the Internet.

It's the "No True Scotsman" fallacy, A.K.A. the "No Real Conservative" Fallacy or the "No True Evangelical Christian/Christian" Fallacy.

[Luis Gonzalez]

If you read a bit more carefully, you'll see that I didn't say that YOU were the one desiring to smear an entire group of people. (And you, indeed weren't the poster I was referring to).

You were, however, trying to support that poster by using a false argument to make that poster's case.

My accurate argument remains.  The original post to which I was responding, was hogwash.

Perhaps that is because I actually spend time with, and dialogue with evangelical Christians, and have for more than a half a century, and don't get my information about who they are from internet blogs and forums trying to discredit an entire group of people, without discernment.

Pride is one of the Seven Deadly Sins.

[musiclady]

Pride is one of the Seven Deadly Sins.

It's not pride, Luis.  It's knowing thousands of actual people over multiple decades.  It's having brilliant evangelical professors, hearing brilliant Christian apologists and preachers, and having scores of family members and friends who know Christ.

It's the opposite of pride, in fact.  It's actually closer to humility when I think of all the incredibly intelligent people I have known who are included in the besmirching of an entire group based on the ignorance of the one doing the smearing.

Now, I don't like Huckabee, and you don't like Huckabee, and you have lost the argument on its merits.

Stop being so personal here, OK?

[musiclady]

BTW ML.

The desire to smear an entire group of people among some on the internet is obvious.

It was YOU who decided to "smear an entire group of people", not me.

It was YOU who said that an entire group of people weren't really Evangelical Christians based on your own criteria of wnat constitutes a "true" evangelical Christian.

That's you (not me) judging an entire group of people on the Internet.

It's the "No True Scotsman" fallacy, A.K.A. the "No Real Conservative" Fallacy or the "No True Evangelical Christian/Christian" Fallacy.

Aha........ but you are once again in error, Luis. 

I didn't say the 'entire group' was not Christian, I included multiple times that they may just be ignorant of what Huckabee has done.

Read mountaineer's link on the faux "No True Scotsman" argument you insist on using, and learn something.

There is no logical fallacy in any of my arguments, your insistence on imaginary (albeit cute)  internet arguments notwithstanding.

[Luis Gonzalez]

Aha........ but you are once again in error, Luis. 

I didn't say the 'entire group' was not Christian, I included multiple times that they may just be ignorant of what Huckabee has done.

Read mountaineer's link on the faux "No True Scotsman" argument you insist on using, and learn something.

There is no logical fallacy in any of my arguments, your insistence on imaginary (albeit cute)  internet arguments notwithstanding.

So then, most of the voters know what Huckabee is except the millions of Evangelical Christiqns who are either ignorant or not "True Evangelical Christians" because they support him in spite of his well-known reputation as a corrupt politico.

Your continued explanations and contortions to support your statement are actually an integral part of the "No True Scotsman" fallacy.

[musiclady]

So then, most of the voters know what Huckabee is except the millions of Evangelical Christiqns who are either ignorant or not "True Evangelical Christians" because they support him in spite of his well-known reputation as a corrupt politico.

Your continued explanations and contortions to support your statement are actually an integral part of the "No True Scotsman" fallacy.

I know you really want to win this debate with your cute, pre-fab, biased argument, Luis, but you've lost.

Move on.

[Luis Gonzalez]

I know you really want to win this debate with your cute, pre-fab, biased argument, Luis, but you've lost.

Move on.

You made be biased statement.

[ABX]

It is all I have to say because what I said was clearly evident.

It's a textbook example of the fallacy.

A. Evangelicals overwhelmingly supported Huckabee in 2008 and they do now as well.
B. Huckabee was listed as one of the top ten most corrupt politicians in the U.S. In 2007 by many groups both conservative and liberal.
C. No true Evangelical would support Huckabee.

Yet, they supported him after knowing that he was corrupt.

No True Scotsman alright

Carry on with your self-righteous indignation.

The problem I see with this is group A knowing about fact B. We often over-estimate the knowledge of the voter because we are so connected to facts and issues. There is a sizable portion of the voting population who isn't. My grandmother is one. Thinks he is the bees knees, sweet little Baptist preacher. She isn't on the internet, doesn't frequent news programs but a few like Huck's. I know many blue hairs in church just like this. They probably have no clue he is corrupt or of they did, they would pass it off as the devil spreading lies about one of God's workers or something like that.  I often scratched my head wondering why so many vote for Huckabee in the polls, then I go to church and see the throngs of little old ladies who don't follow politics deeply, just want the preacher man, and it all makes sense.

[musiclady]

The problem I see with this is group A knowing about fact B. We often over-estimate the knowledge of the voter because we are so connected to facts and issues. There is a sizable portion of the voting population who isn't. My grandmother is one. Thinks he is the bees knees, sweet little Baptist preacher. She isn't on the internet, doesn't frequent news programs but a few like Huck's. I know many blue hairs in church just like this. They probably have no clue he is corrupt or of they did, they would pass it off as the devil spreading lies about one of God's workers or something like that.  I often scratched my head wondering why so many vote for Huckabee in the polls, then I go to church and see the throngs of little old ladies who don't follow politics deeply, just want the preacher man, and it all makes sense.

You pretty much nailed this group, AbraXas.

They just don't know.

[EC]

You pretty much nailed this group, AbraXas.

They just don't know.

I'd break it down further - some just don't know, some don't WANT to know. The first I feel sorry for. The second group, not so much, even though I understand the incredible urge to hang on to something you believe in and makes you feel good or right no matter what.

[Luis Gonzalez]

The problem I see with this is group A knowing about fact B. We often over-estimate the knowledge of the voter because we are so connected to facts and issues. There is a sizable portion of the voting population who isn't. My grandmother is one. Thinks he is the bees knees, sweet little Baptist preacher. She isn't on the internet, doesn't frequent news programs but a few like Huck's. I know many blue hairs in church just like this. They probably have no clue he is corrupt or of they did, they would pass it off as the devil spreading lies about one of God's workers or something like that.  I often scratched my head wondering why so many vote for Huckabee in the polls, then I go to church and see the throngs of little old ladies who don't follow politics deeply, just want the preacher man, and it all makes sense.

Meanwhile, some would invalidate your Grandmther's Chridtianity based on her political acumen.

Here's what I find perplexing or even amusing.

There is as much a willingness to judge someone's Christianity based on their political acumen as there is a wllingness to judge a politician's conservatism based on their Christian beliefs.

Here is where the fallacy comes into play.

"No True Evanglical Christian would KNOWINGLY support a corrupt politician" is a judgement that could ONLY be valid if you had personal and direct knowledge of why every single Evangelical Christian supported Huckabee. To say that the millions of EC that supported him didn't simply place more weight on his professed religious beliefs than his known record of corrupt practices is to claim title to knowledge that no one can possibly posses. 

[musiclady]

Meanwhile, some would invalidate your Grandmther's Chridtianity based on her political acumen.

Here's what I find perplexing or even amusing.

There is as much a willingness to judge someone's Christianity based on their political acumen as there is a wllingness to judge a politician's conservatism based on their Christian beliefs.

Here is where the fallacy comes into play.

No True Evanglical Christian would KNOWINGLY support a corrupt politician is a judgement that could ONLY be valid if you had personal and direct knowledge of why every single Evangelical Chrietian supported Huckabee. To say that the millions of EC that supported him didn't simply place more weight on his professed religious beliefs than his known record of corrupt practices is to claim title to knowledge that no one can possibly posses.

I see you're still arguing your  fallacy, Luis.  Who has said that AbaraXas grandmother is not a Christian based on her political acumen?

NO one.

You set up a false premise, and then dismiss it based on further false argumentation.

I've seen you argue your case well, Luis. 

Not working for you here......

[musiclady]

I'd break it down further - some just don't know, some don't WANT to know. The first I feel sorry for. The second group, not so much, even though I understand the incredible urge to hang on to something you believe in and makes you feel good or right no matter what.

I agree with this further breakdown.

In cases such as this, you're dealing with a similar sort of 'willful ignorance' that the leftist LIV practices.  Perhaps based on their not wanting to work hard enough to find out the truth.

People of all stripes can be lazy.  And people of all stripes can be blind followers.

To lay this specifically at the feet of evangelical Christianity is not a valid argument, no matter how much it is practiced by those who want to smear the entire group with sweeping generalizations.