Sorry for being off-topic.
When -you- decide that a group of people is stupid, and then you decide to attack that implied trait, rather than a particular argument, that is certainly a logical fallacy. This is no different than if I argue that any arguments from the left are invalid because leftists are lazy thieving moochers.
I was making fun of Clint Eastwood talking to a chair at the last Republican National Convention. It was a joke to continue on with your outlook on Carson. I agree that he is a moron that has said a lot of stupid things and yet people think he is as good as Trump because they think just like them.
That is why I was comparing the two. Clint Eastwood is getting senile in his old age and Carson is the chair in the video.
I finally got to finish watching the debate, and I have to agree that CNBC and the moderators were absolute shit. But it wasn't because there was a liberal bias. Anyone claiming that there was a liberal bias obviously has no clue what CNBC is. It is a network that was created to be the fucking lapdog and propaganda wing of Wall Street. Hardly a bastion of the "liberal media". They even employ the guy whose rant inspired the fucking Tea Party (and he actually got to ask a few questions at the debate).
CNBC and the moderators were absolute shit because they asked moronic questions that it seemed like a 10-year-old would come up with, and they refused to hold candidates accountable to the rules of the debate. Right off the bat, John Kasich completely ignored the very first question of the debate, and none of the moderators held him accountable for it. They also let the candidates talk for however long they want. What's the point of having a time limit if you don't enforce it? Either be willing to talk over them when their time is up, or have an O'Reilly system in place where you cut their fucking mic.
CNBC is a piece of shit network and it should never be allowed to host another political debate. That's one thing I can agree with the RNC with, but for different reasons.