“Johnson currently has 10%+ in 42 states. That may throw the election to Hillary, as surely as those who voted for Perot threw the election to Bill Clinton.”

This is actually true, insofar as Perot didn’t throw the election to Bill and Johnson won’t throw the election to Hillary. While Perot supporters were drawn more from Bush than from Clinton, dispersing them back to their next-preferred candidate in a two-way race would only have resulted in a tighter win for Clinton.

And poll after poll this election has shown that Johnson pulls in roughly equal proportion from both candidates — with a slightly larger number actually coming from Clinton. So from what we can see, Gary Johnson’s leaving the race would actually slightly hurt Trump.

Now this is gratuitous.

Standing alone, one can argue that those words are true.

However, to point it out, in the course of one’s own argument, that one is using “reason and logic” IS like arguing someone else isn’t.

No doubt everyone here feels they have a “reasoned and specific rationale”.

The discussion / debate should be about their points not peacocking about how one’s own argument is “unimpeachable”.
http://neoneocon.com/2016/07/18/here-goes-the-republican-national-convention-begins-today/#comment-1415158

Two wrongs don’t make a right, even with newspeak thrown in.

“While we cannot know what Trump will do, we do know what Hillary will try to do.”

I think this is the first time you have used a qualification “try to do” instead of “will do” in your assessment of HRC’s future actions. That takes the edge off and makes your opinion less dogmatic IMO.

NO. Of course it is an opinion. It is an opinion based in consideration of what history and the current domestic dynamics indicate.

Of course Hillary and the Left may stumble.

However, events and history in the last 100 years and… the inarguable momentum the Left is and has achieved in advancing toward its goals… strongly argue otherwise.

That is what I’m arguing NOT that it is ‘fact’.

While we cannot know what Trump will do, we do know what Hillary will try to do.

So the issue is the certainty of the mortal threat that Hillary and the Left embody toward individual liberty VS the uncertainty that Trump presents. Along with the forces that stand ready to assist them. And again, the alt-r ability to deliver is uncertain, whereas the Left’s ability is fully established.

You might consider that when your side strongly advances an argument, you see it as reasonable but when I do the same, you characterize it as presenting opinion as fact. This despite my offering specific rationales for why I believe, as I do.

The problem with your arguments is that they rely on predictions of future behavior THAT YOU CANNOT POSSIBLY KNOW FOR SURE. In that case, what you’re really basing your arguments on are OPINIONS.
The reason this is galling to both OM and Big Maq (and a little to me) is that you are trying to pass this off as based on FACT.

It is not.

Hillary may be worse than Trump. She may be better.
You can make arguments about why you think one is more probable than the other, but you cannot make definitive statements like THE COUNTRY WILL END IF HILLARY IS ELECTED!!1!!1!1!!!!

Once again, quit with the hysterics and get a hold of yourself.

I don’t know much about the others, but to rank Klavan amongst the trump supporters is spurious at best, if you truly understand Klavan’s argument.

Yeah….I thought I remembered that piece from Klavan. So whoever said he was a Trump supporter was at least lying by omission.

Klavan put his finger on it in the video, a point I’ve recently been making too: “I’m voting for Trump because I’m angry, and when I’m angry I make bad decisions.”

Trumpkins are whipping everyone into a frenzy so that they’ll make bad decisions. I’ve seen quite a few formerly-reasonable people fall for this, and now they’re almost unhinged.
Ho-hum. Just another sleazy used car salesman tactic from a sleaze.

“There is a certain arrogance in announcing this. As if nobody else is using “logic and reason”. Big Maq

Logic 101: premise – extension – conclusion.
Logic’s major flaw is it’s inability to disprove it’s premise. That said, if the chain of logic is consistent without internal contradiction, it is valid. But ‘valid’ does not make it ‘true’, which only the reality of events can determine.

So, when I can say that the premises that I have previously concluded to be true and the consequent conclusions that I arrive at are internally consistent with the premise, then if I’m acting rationally, I have to follow where they lead until persuaded otherwise by a reasoned rationale that disproves or supersedes the prior logic.

There’s nothing arrogant about that, no matter how convenient that would be in argumentation.