Just ahead of his headline spot at the CPAC convention in Virginia and the South Carolina primary on Saturday, Republican presidential frontrunner Donald Trump delivered a speech to right-wing broadcasters Thursday night in which the former president vowed to hand power over to the Christian nationalist movement on an unprecedented scale.
Trump said during his speech at the annual conference of the National Religious Broadcasters (NRB) in Nashville, Tennesse that he would defend "pro-God context and content" on the nation's AM radio stations as he told the audience that religion is "the biggest thing missing" in the United States and warned, without evidence, that Christian broadcasters were "under siege" by the left and a "fascist" Biden administration.
"We have to bring back our religion," Trump declared. "We have to bring back Christianity."
Striking a Christ-like pose at one point with his arms outstretched as if on a cross, Trump mentioned his legal struggles, including multiple criminal indictments and civil judgements, and said, "I take all these arrows for you and I'm so proud to take them. I'm being indicted for you."
As Common Dreamsreported earlier this week, right-wing Christian Nationalists operating in Trump's inner circle are quietly preparing for the prospect of his possible reelection.
In his speech Thursday, during which he also promised to close the Department of Education so that Christian fundamentalists could take over school policy at the state level, Trump said, "If I get in, you're going to be using that power at a level that you’ve never used before."
proceeds to straw-man and ad hominem 🤔
proceeds to throw out words that they feel are cutting but since they don't actually understand what a strawman looks like, it falls flat
I addressed their direct statement, the 'no true scotsman' clause. That is not strawmanning.
And ad-hominems must explicitly contain the implication that the opponent's argument is either incorrect or not to be trusted BECAUSE of the insult.
For example:
OP is obviously a furry cakefucker.
That is not an ad-hominem. That is just an insult.
Example 2:
How can we trust the intellectual rigor of a furry cakefucker?
THAT is an ad-hominem attack. It implies that their argument is invalid and untrustworthy because they are a furry cakefucker.
You only used those words because you have seen other people use them in similar circumstances. Maybe next time try understanding what you are saying.