mineistaken

Again, libby logic.
How did I defend him in this case?

Lets see:

1. A guy posted that Trump won't do any work and it would be JUST CREDIT.
Mark prince "debunked" this guy by posting job description of that "just credit".

Let say I produce a movie, you are my buddy, I give you some "assistant producer" credit for nothing.
Then Mark comes in ant posts official job description for assistant producer and thinks he won the argument that you actually did the work and I am lying that I just gave you credit for being my buddy or whatever, or that it would be beneficial to have you in my credits, or whatever.

I think you have enough brain power to understand that this is not a viable logic.

So I was 100% stating the fact of how Mark prince ws wrong with his logic and 0% defending Trump.

2. Barry came in and announced that this was Trump's priority etc.
I said - where do you get the idea that this was his priority? There was 0 indicator that this was any priority or whatever.
So barry just invented things.
Again - I merely stated the FACT that Barry invented things. 0% defending Trump, just fact statement.

Exposing flawed logic and stating facts = defending Trump in libby logic?

In no way I even implied that I approve of Trump being exec here (that is exposed as fake news now, btw). I merely talked about logic flaws in barry's and mark's posts. These are 2 separate things.

I am baffled how you are so stupid to mix these two things. If you expose logic flaws in someone who is speaking against Trump = you are defending Trump... While in fact I said 0 words in favor of him bing exec, I may be against it. That does not mean I can not expose logic flaws in peoples thinking who are against it as well.

According to your line of thinking:
I am against drugs.
Somebody is also against drugs, but makes illogical argument against them.
I expose that illogical argument.
According to you now I am defending drugs.

I mean seriously, THINK. This is very basic... Even you should understand it.