Trumps Been Instigating Civil War The Whole Time

A Lesson in Logic & Sophistry:

A poster using a false name posted in this thread. The original post has been deleted and replaced with a sentence by sentence examination of the original post.

Since the Centrist Party is about truth, evidence and logic in context, this post is an example of how things are misunderstood rather easily without proper and relevant context considered.

Here is the post broken down sentence by sentence:

1st sentence [opinion]: "I feel that this article is not written in the spirit of centrist party."

Spirit is undefined in the authors post. If one apply the tenets of the Centrist Party (CP), this post 'is' in the 'spirit' of the CP.

http://uscentrist.org/platform/guidelines/tenets

2nd sentence [sophist red herring]: "This article while containing factual information is written in the manner that a typical major media outlet would provide."

In news reporting, that's not a bad thing actually.

3rd sentence [False Logic: argumetum ad lapidem]: "This is a very one sided outlook on trumps tenure as president."

Reporting News is about reporting facts, not sides. Reporting both sides when one is factual and the other is propaganda is not News, but rather a mechanism that enhances 'confusion' of facts and propaganda.

4th sentence [Non sequitur/false logic argumentum ad poassiones]: "To try and convince your reader Trump is literally using Hitler as his basis for rule is nothing short of fear mongering."

Again, News is about 'informing' in a truthful manner. Plus I could write an entire book comparing Donald Trump and his kids in comparison to Hitler and Hitler's regime, and demonstrate a tremendous number of parallels. Whether a reader is 'convinced' about anything is dependent on the cognition and bias potentials of the reader.

5th sentence [Opinion, False claim and inference]: "Im not a Trump supporter but I find this in bad taste as the article does nothing to provide knowledge to the reader, but rather to strengthen a position against the Trump presidency."

The piece absolutely provides 'knowledge' to the reader. The parallels and connections form Trumps ONLY book he read according to his first wife Ivana and Trumps policies and actions of his administration. Whether the information causes a reader to be against or for Trump depends on whether the reader supports Republican Democracy (America) or Authoritarian Dictatorship (Donald Trump).

6th sentence [Opinion, false logic and sophist distraction(red herring)]: "how this is "news" is beyond me, this is an opinion piece at best."

The post author expresses his opinion that the piece is an "opinion piece", while also saying the piece contains "factual information". The definition of News is 'newly received or noteworthy information, especially about recent or important events'. So yes, this piece is a news piece.

Last sentence [Non sequitur]: Also, site some judges."

Citing "judges" is not needed for the piece to stand.

The CP is about upholding evidence, reason and logic in relevant context. Illogical posts are not allowed because they can easily distract and mislead readers.

Another Lesson in Logic & Sophistry:

FALSE: "Poster: Firstly. I have not used a fake name."

The poster registered a different username than the name on the internal form. This clearly indicates the poster used a fake name. Both can't be his 'legal' name.

MISLEADING: Poster: "I have used my REGISTWRED user name which was accepted by the webmaster and automated system."

The system is honor based, the software can't tell if a person is lying about their name. It's up to the PERSON to be HONORABLE and use their REAL NAME.

NON SEQUITUR/RED HERRING: Poster: "Secondly, you can claim that this piece is educational but it was obvious by the removing of a disagreement that you are strongly biased towards the Trump party and do whatever it takes to maintain an agenda against him."

The article is educational as it is based on evidence readily available. The removal of the original post is simply to disallow noisy/distracting conversation based on clearly biased non-factual OPINION as opposed to actual EVIDENCE and place FACTS FIRST.
RED HERRING: The post author would like the reader to believe the editor (me) is biased against the 'Trump party'. I am not biased against the 'Trump party':
1st, there is no such thing as the 'Trump party', Donald is registered Republican.
2nd, The CP is by design biased against lies and fraudulent behavior.
3rd, The CP by design has an ABSOLUTE agenda against misleading information, lies, fraudulent behavior as determinable by evidence, reason and logic.

NOTE: Notice how much sophistry the author has packed into a single sentence.

FALSE: "None of the reports in this article are corroborated by anyone or cited within reason."

The facts can be corroborated, one just has to start looking things up using a search engine on the internet. I'm a bit surprised the post author indicates he is not aware of the existence of the internet, since the author is using the internet to try to post false information on teh CP web site. That is oxymoronic.

NOISE: "When and where did his ex wife claim he only read Hitler books?"

The author could easily have put that question in an internet search engine and begin researching his own question. Possibly the author feels entitled to have everything his way? I put his question in a search engine. Here are the top two results:

https://www.businessinsider.com/donald-trumps-ex-wife-once-said-he-kept-a-book-of-hitlers-speeches-by-his-bed-2015-8?r=US&IR=T

https://www.inquisitr.com/2900659/donald-trumps-ex-wife-says-he-studied-hitler-speeches-claims-anonymous-video/

But rephrasing the question would net more results.

NON SEQUITUR/RED HERRING/NOISE: "Additionally, is the story of a gilted ex lover one that we should believe without a grain of salt?"

Here the author uses a red herring argument that is inherently deceitful, mysogynistic and sexist, which assumes the girl is the problem not Donald Trump who has 38 Federal convictions on his record for tax evasion, fraud and money laundering, hundreds of fraud cases in lower courts that he LOST. And Donald Trump has been accused of raping a 13 year old girl, with a total of 26 women (to date) that have publicly accused Donald Trump of sexual assault. As for the SILLY grain of salt comment, these crimes are amazingly huge 'grains of salt' so to speak, if we are to follow the logic of teh commenters assertion.

FALSE/NOISE: "Seems to me the author is just willing to go all in on claims that he cannot back up."

All the evidence is there, one just has to put in a little effort.

FALSE/NOISE: "There is no factual evidence given in this article and it is purely conjecture."

The article and the recorded piece are loaded with factual verifiable evidence based statements, as indicated in the simple search I did above. The author seems too lazy to put in the effort to look. This is a problem I notice in society. Too many are willing to believe their own opinions rather than research facts.

Yet another lesson in sophistry courtesy of/by Fake Name "GordonRamsay"

Editor: John P. Reisman

ARGUMENTUM AD LAPIDUM/NOISE/CIRCULAR LOGIC/ARGUMENTUM AD PASSIONES-POPULUM: "Oh I see now you are the author. It is truly sad that you attempt to guide peoples opinions about the matter rather than leaving my comment for open discussion by other party members."

The post author attempts to state as fact his personal opinion, by asserting that 'FACTS' are opinion. Then asserts his NOISE is valuable enough to warrant discussion. Facts are not up for discussion unless there is ACTUAL evidence to provide an intelligent contraindicative fact based consideration. The position of the CP is we don't want to waste our members time with useless random opinionated noise.

ARGUMENTUM AD LAPIDUM/NOISE/NON SEQUITUR/ARGUMENTUM AD PASSIONES-POPULUM/CIRCULAR LOGIC/and a non-substantive 'assumptive' version of ARGUMENTUM AD VERICUNDIUM: "Arent we supposed to "reach across party lines and use common sense solutions...."?"

The poster attempts to distract the reader with an appeal to false logic and appeal to false reasoning by asserting that 'we are supposed to'.... The truth of the matter is reaching across party lines is not a requirement to achieve a well reasoned policy. The assertion is clearly non sequitur.

NOISE/IRRELEVANT: "This can never be achieved if you're going to hide from those who disagree with you."

1st: It is the poster that is hiding behind a false name. I, John P. Reisman, am not hiding at all. John P. Reisman is my legal name.
2nd: As editor, I have not hidden the post authors comment but rather highlighted it and broken down the lack of logic presented in the posters comment.
3rd: The comment poster can disagree with facts if he so chooses, but that is a reflection of his own inadequacy in perspective/knowledge/understanding, not the veracity of this news item.

SO WHAT?: "This article and comment thread has now been archived."

Ummm.... Okay. And of course it is also archived on this page as well.

LAST THOUGHT: I understand that many people are not well trained in evidence, reason or logic via the Socratic method. It is up to all of us to try to understand things better, more accurately, more in realistic context, if we are to achieve higher levels of societal function in our Federal Republican Democracy in America. It's not easy, but it is important. And yes, the commenter has provided some excellent examples of misleading sophistry and for that I can than him so that we could elucidate and parse the method of misinformation and disinformation.