Honestly, it kinda seems like rhetoric is the father of politics. Think about it, it's a bunch of wigs arguing and trying to appeal to others to get something done. It's all politicians seem to so, banter/argue until they get what they want. However, one politician is taking a stand; Senator Joe Manchin of West Virginia. He's arguing to take the "politics out of politics." In other words, he wants to strip it of things deemed unnecessary (negative campaigning and working against incumbents.) However, CNN has a different take, seeing it as leading to a one-party system and increasing incumbent reelection. Let's see how they argue this.
The Fallacy of Accident: "But, like all things that seem good, this is bad."
This does not explicitly follow the model, but does imply it. It says that things that seem good are, in reality, bad. What is being discussed (Senator Manchin's proposal) is seen as good. Following the previous logic however, this meant the proposal is actually bad.
One-Sidedness: "Remember that every trade association, every political action committee and every lobby shop has a vested interest in giving to incumbents so politicians in office would have no problem continuing to hoover up cash."
This quote makes a one-sided argument in the fact that it doesn't consider all information. Has it been proven that all PAC's/lobby shops have this interest? If even one that doesn't follow this is found, this argument is destroyed.
POST: https://www.cnn.com/2018/02/06/politics/manchin-politics/index.html
No comments:
Post a Comment