this post was submitted on 07 Oct 2024
450 points (97.1% liked)

politics

19238 readers
2101 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] DirkMcCallahan@lemmy.world 32 points 2 months ago (2 children)

I feel like I've seen this headline (and slight variants) multiple times in the past few weeks. It's almost a Gish Gallop statement, because where do you begin?

It implies that he had a grip 4/8 years ago.

It implies that he ever had a grip.

It implies that his public statements are weirder now than before, when they've always been bizarre.

It implies that Donald Trump's policy positions are peculiar to him, when really he's basically reflecting what Republicans have been trying to push on us for decades.

[–] unemployedclaquer@sopuli.xyz 4 points 2 months ago

No, he's never had a grip, but there's been a noticeable change since even 2016. As there was a noticeable change to 16 from ten years prior. He's just gradually declining. It means nothing for his base that they are voting for a Vance succession, apparently.

[–] ccdfa@lemm.ee 1 points 2 months ago

Just to be clear—I know it's said that this is almost a gish gallop statement—but it absolutely is not.

Since we're just talking about the headline and not the contents of the article, then this is just a statement. It's not an argument so it can't be a gish gallop. If we take the implications of the statement as premises and the headline as a conclusion, then this is just one singular argument which also means it cannot be a gish gallop. Any argument will have a number of premises. Where do you begin? At any of the premises. Demonstrating that the premises are false will show the conclusion to be false. By definition a gish gallop is a great number of arguments that overwhelm an opponent. One argument simply cannot be a gish gallop.