I don't consider myself a politically-savvy man, but it's relatively easy to find that—of all candidates—Clinton, receives funding from lobbyists tied to Wall Street corporations known for controversy; Goldman Sachs, Monsanto, and Time Warner among them.
And while I can't say I'm an expert on this year's presidential candidates—at least not with the spotlight fixed on Trump's toupee, I didn't need to search long to find a logical fallacy. In the New Hampshire Democratic Debate last December, Bernie Sanders decided to bring attention to the donations bankrolling Clinton, by stating that we must handle:
"[the] degree to which big money controls the political process in this country,"or else:
"nobody is gonna' bring about the changes that are needed in this country for the middle class and working families."Clinton responded with a strawman argument. The strawman fallacy is when an individual creates a mock argument to refute, in place of the position they claim to be discrediting. This could be misrepresenting another's opinions and ideas, attacking these misrepresentations instead of what the other intended to mean.
- John wants to repeal the death penalty
- Bill argues that letting convicted criminals go free puts innocent people at risk.
"There is this attack that [Sanders] is putting forth which really comes down to: anybody who ever took donations or speaking fees from any interest group, has to be bought."
In this response, Clinton declares that Sanders' assumes she'd been bought out by her detonators, when in reality, he's cautionary over the influence on her politics these groups have. While not a Sanders' supporter, I found Clinton's reply to be botched and unsympathetic towards those with different view points.
At least that's what I think. I might be biased, everyone is. Welcome to politics.Good night.
No comments:
Post a Comment