|
Misleading in appearance, misleadingly attractive, or having the appearance of plausibility while actually being incorrect.
You contend that my statement that there are large numbers of non-white Tea Partiers is specious: ie misleading in appearance, misleadingly attractive, or superficially plausible while factually incorrect. How is this the case?
And the definition of a "large number" is, as is the term itself, entirely subjective. As a result, what I consider "large" you may not. Ergo, a strawman inviting a moving of goalposts. Since the Tea Party (not being an actual organization) does not keep membership rolls or demographic data on itself, this is an unanswerable question. I perceive the Tea Party as having a significant non-white constituency, while others (including most of the media) deny that -any- such constituency of whatever size exists at all. While neither position is objectively provable, one is demonstrably closer to reality than the other.
|