[Skrillex]

I do not want this to sound ironic, but the explanation that seems most intuitive to me is that the parent has been informed of some number of the president's actions (likely through the media and/or aquaintances) and came to the conclusion that the president does not think long and hard about his moral positions. While the parent may indeed have an irrational hatred of the president (I do not immediately see any evidence for it, but you may not prove a negative), it is not a hard requirement in order to maintain the opinion that the president does not think long and hard about his moral positions. Does that seem plausible?

On an unrelated note, I do not hate the president, but also believe that either he does not think long and hard about his moral positions, or simply does not actually share them with the public. In my case, I believe this because he appears to rapidly shift his opinions, attitudes, and words in a way that makes it difficult to infer what he believes, or even what he wants people to believe that he believes.

[Lkjhmnbv]

Then you have to explain why he didn't want to bomb random Muslims but the democratic party, their propaganda outlets, and their commisars did.

Can you explain that? That's the part that makes your statment seem like neither of you have actually thought about this.

[Skrillex]

I do not understand what "the democratic party, their propaganda outlets, and their commisars" have to do with whether or not the president has thought long and hard about his moral positions. I explained why I think that he does not, but even if that reason were not provided, it does not follow that someone with the position that the president does not think long and hard about his moral positions would need to have an irrational hatred of him. To briefly reduce your position to a strawman:

>Person X believes that the president does not think long and hard about his moral positions -> Person X has an irrational hatred of the president

My issue is with that deduction. There is a logical jump somewhere in here that I am not able to follow. You reference multiple third parties and contrast them to the president as if to suggest that whatever differences that they may have means that it is clear that this hypothetical Person X has an irrational hatred of the president, or that a particular decision that the president has made proves this, but these are not obvious conclusions to me. As for why "he didn't want to bomb random Muslims but the democratic party, their propaganda outlets, and their commisars did", I actually do not have to explain that. The reason that I have given is in no way refuted by or related to this claim.

Instead, could you explain why the opinion that the president does not think long and hard about his moral positions is sufficient evidence that the holder of that opinion irrationally hates the president?

[Lkjhmnbv]

Because it has no basis in reality, as evidenced by the fact that, in the examples provided, he's demonstrated more morality than anyone else in politics.

I'm not really sure why this is confusing. If you think he doesn't think things through, you have to explain the counter examples.

Otherwise you're just ignoring reality and cherry picking facts.

[Skrillex]

Would you say that your argument is essentially "This person is wrong in such a way that would not be possible without irrationally hating the president"? If that were the case, I would argue that people can be wrong for any reason(s), which seems like a truism to me.

As for the counter-examples, you have not provided any. You are arguing that the president is the most moral politician (which, while an extraordinary claim, has not been disagreed with by anyone in the thread as far as I can tell), while I am arguing that someone's lack of belief that the president thinks long and hard about his moral positions is not sufficient evidence that such a person has an irrational hatred of the president. I would normally have left it there since we may not even be talking about the same thing, but it seems like your argument is for a unified theory that not only is the president moral, but he is moral to the extent that the belief earlier expressed is evidence that the person holding it both hates the president, and does so irrationally. I was wholly incredulous of that claim, but was seeing if there were some obvious part of it that I missed. That is the confusing part. Does statement actually make sense to you without 5 or 6 extra assumptions in between?

[Lkjhmnbv]

That is correct. You have no concrete examples of immorality, merely gross generalizations. When presented with cases showing that he is more moral than people you defend, you obfuscate and ignore and claim incredulity, because you have no argument.