“Marco Rubio, a frothy focused-grouped concoction whose main qualifications to be president consists of a nice smile and an easy wit, has been mocking Trump as a con man.” This is an Ad Hominem within an Ad hominem. The author attacks Marco Rubio by making fun of him and his qualifications to be president. At the same time we see Marco Rubio has attacked Trump by mocking him as a con man.
2) (Defend Donald Trump’s right to free speech on cnn.com p.g. 12)
“There used to be consequences to protesting. There are not anymore. These people are so bad for our country, you have no idea, folks.” In this statement the author is quoting a statement from Trump. Two logical fallacies presented here are stereotyping and begging the question. Trump is stereotyping all protesters saying that they are bad for this country and asking others to accept this statement as true without any proof.
3) …show more content…
14)
“If you don’t stand up for Trump’s liberty today, someone may come for yours tomorrow. If we believe in free speech, we need to believe in Trump’s as well.” This is an either/or fallacy because the author is trying to convince us that there are only two sides to an issue, one right and one