(Spoilers) - The War makes no sense

[Megorova]

2 hours ago, falcotron said:

No, he very definitely was a knight. Are you mixing up the Mountain (Gregor) and his brother the Hound (Sandor)?

Gregor's knighthood (and Sandor's lack of one) is pretty central to his brother's arc, and to the series' examination of knighthood vs. chivalry.

Yep, seems that I mixed them up.

Which doesn't change much the point of discussion - person who was not a knight, was chosen as a shield by King Joffrey. If not a knight can be King's bodyguard, then Cersei also can recruit to be her Black Guards, people that are not knights.

Furthermore if the Mountain was already a knight, then our discussion about whether he can even swear an oath, is miningless. He already made a pledge, so no need to repeat it again. Also he has an excuse not to speak: " QYBURN: If it please Your Grace, he’s taken a holy vow of silence. He has sworn that he will not speak until all his Grace’s enemies are dead, and the evil has been driven from the realm." 

[Megorova]

16 hours ago, Beardy the Wildling said:

Is it time to break out the peppermint shots, or should I wait for Megorova to admit she's trying way too hard to cover for things D & D didn't think about/fudged to give Lena Headey a longer contract and keep some human villains around?

Your celebration will have to wait until Season 8. I'm not admitting anything, until it will be directly refuted or confirmed in GOT.

[Megorova]

3 hours ago, Jabul said:

The assertion that the knights of the Kingsguard are merely good knights flies in the face of logic, history, and common sense. Besides, the fact that the Lord Commander is part of the Small Council can't just be waved aside. This one fact argues strongly against your position.

Barristan Selmy was dismissed from his position as Lord Commander of KG, and evicted from Small Council. He was replaced by Jaime. But Jaime also was dismissed later by Tommen. Even though before those two cases, all previous LCofKG were serving for life. Two Kings, one after another, changed what was a nearly 300 years long tradition. But people of 7K didn't rebelled because of it. So who cares if Cersei killed all previous members of Tommen's KG, and instead of KG, created Queen's Black Guards?

What exactly are we arguing about? Whether elimination of Kingsguars as 'institution' should be considered by Westerosi as The End of The World, and horrible sin done by Cersei? Though they don't think so. And it's not a result of bad writing, or plot hole missed by D&D. You're forgetting that previous rulers of 7K done much worse thing than this, not only on the show, but also in the ASOIAF books. 

Robert participated in murdering of Aegon's children. Their death was beneficial to him, so he pardoned Tywin and his people for doing this, that's the same as being an accomplice. If people haven't rebelled against new King that took part in killing little children, then why would they rebel against his wife, that killed those who betrayed her? They won't.

[Megorova]

3 hours ago, Jabul said:

Or perhaps you want to say that Trant's death didn't overturn Westeros, and therefore the organization that guards the king isn't really important. Sheesh, your grade in logic must have been lower than the scores that the lords of the Reach received in history and mathematics. 

Your grade in logic must have been lower, than the bottom to which Tommen fell.

King commited suicide, and seven super good knights weren't able to prevent this. Where were they, when Tommen was taken as a captive by the Mountain? Either all of them were killed by the Mountain ( in which case they weren't good enough to be King's protectors), or Kingsguards as 'institution' were eliminated even before that, by King Tommen himself, when he dismissed Jaime (probably other members of KG he also has send away). In both cases people won't blame Cersei for what happened. In first case it was Tommen's mistake, for not chosing for himself more capable protectors, or it was still Tommen's fault, for dismissing those knights. If people blame anyone for elimination of KG, they blame Tommen.

[Megorova]

4 hours ago, Jabul said:

Of course, your post misses the most important point I was making: The utterly creepy nature of the Cersei's court would turn off just about anyone who has any sense of Westerosi traditions. This creepiness includes, Qyburn, the Black Guards, incest, the elevation to high office of a man/thing that confessed to the rape and murder of a princess, etc. Anyone, including the lords of the Reach, coming into the throne room would almost certainly have had the feeling they were entering the Westerosi equivalent of Frankenstein's Lab or The House of Dracula. 

When Aerys was their King, Red Keep was way more creepyer. And while Cersei has only one freak maester, Aerys had an entire Guild of Alchemists, and several pyromancers served in the court.

Probably people feel nostalgic, when they come into current throne room, with its darkened atmosphere, and faceless guards

[The Golden Wolf]

@Megorova....why are you not using multiquote??? 

39 minutes ago, Megorova said:

Barristan Selmy was dismissed from his position as Lord Commander of KG, and evicted from Small Council. He was replaced by Jaime. But Jaime also was dismissed later by Tommen. Even though before those two cases, all previous LCofKG were serving for life. Two Kings, one after another, changed what was a nearly 300 years long tradition. But people of 7K didn't rebelled because of it. So who cares if Cersei killed all previous members of Tommen's KG, and instead of KG, created Queen's Black Guards?

What exactly are we arguing about? Whether elimination of Kingsguars as 'institution' should be considered by Westerosi as The End of The World, and horrible sin done by Cersei? Though they don't think so. And it's not a result of bad writing, or plot hole missed by D&D. You're forgetting that previous rulers of 7K done much worse thing than this, not only on the show, but also in the ASOIAF books. 

Robert participated in murdering of Aegon's children. Their death was beneficial to him, so he pardoned Tywin and his people for doing this, that's the same as being an accomplice. If people haven't rebelled against new King that took part in killing little children, then why would they rebel against his wife, that killed those who betrayed her? They won't.

I am only going to focus on this comment right here

The Kingsguard is a very important institution within Westeros. Point. Blank. The only reason it has become an afterthought on the show is because they axed Jaime's book storyline which was becoming about him trying to restore the honor and prestige of the Kingsguard while also redefining their purpose. When they cut that off the Kingsguard as we knew it became superfluous and a nonentity on the show.

Also the reason no one is rebelling because Cersie created a "Blackguard" is because honestly there are no lords who give an actual fuck about it when they have far more pressing concerns like Winter is coming, their liege lords getting blown up in the Great Sept of Baelor, how the WoFK affected their regions, and that Dany has come to Westeros at the head of a massive army and they have no idea what she is going to do with it. 

it is kinda fair to say that most of the lords and people of Westeros do not care what is going on in Kingslanding, what with all their other concerns pressing them. 

And again, this is really paramount, The Kingsguard just doesn't matter anymore to the show. As we have seen in the last two seasons (the entire show in fact) if D$D feel it is not necessary to the show anymore it will be killed off. this is why Barristan got the axe even though he still had much to do. This is probably why the last named Kingsguard that we knew off, Meryn Trant was killed off, so that they could become this faceless Blackguard group. 

[Jabul]

40 minutes ago, Megorova said:

1. Barristan Selmy was dismissed from his position as Lord Commander of KG, and evicted from Small Council. He was replaced by Jaime. But Jaime also was dismissed later by Tommen. Even though before those two cases, all previous LCofKG were serving for life. Two Kings, one after another, changed what was a nearly 300 years long tradition. But people of 7K didn't rebelled because of it. So who cares if Cersei killed all previous members of Tommen's KG, and instead of KG, created Queen's Black Guards?

2. What exactly are we arguing about? Whether elimination of Kingsguars as 'institution' should be considered by Westerosi as The End of The World, and horrible sin done by Cersei? Though they don't think so. And it's not a result of bad writing, or plot hole missed by D&D. You're forgetting that previous rulers of 7K done much worse thing than this, not only on the show, but also in the ASOIAF books. 

3. Robert participated in murdering of Aegon's children. Their death was beneficial to him, so he pardoned Tywin and his people for doing this, that's the same as being an accomplice. If people haven't rebelled against new King that took part in killing little children, then why would they rebel against his wife, that killed those who betrayed her? They won't.

You have mastered the art of missing the point. I give you a definition of a term, clearly showing that it means what I said it means. You do not provide anything that could remotely be called a reasonable answer. Your only attempt, if it even is that, is to put the term in quotes. "Institution"--Is that supposed to be some kind of answer to my point? 

Where, in any post of mine, did I indicate that elimination of the Kingsguard should be considered by Westerosi as the End of the World? 

1. I said that "The assertion that the knights of the Kingsguard are merely good knights flies in the face of logic, history, and common sense. Besides, the fact that the Lord Commander is part of the Small Council can't just be waved aside. This one fact argues strongly against your position." You reply that Barristan and Jaime were dismissed "But people of 7K didn't rebelled because of it." When in the hell did I say anything about a rebellion? I have, in some of my posts, claimed that Cersei is hated. Do you consider hatred equivalent to rebellion? Perhaps you are attributing to me statements that have been made by others. 

I maintain that the Kingsguards knights are something very special. Your reply doesn't appear to have any relationship to that part of my argument. I maintain that the presence of the Lord Commander on the Small Council is a point in favor of my argument. You reply that 2 Lord Commanders have been dismissed. If I said that college football coaches are important and that their high salaries show this, what would your reply be? Would you say that some coaches have been fired? Maybe you would. That's about how much sense your arguments make. 

2. What are we arguing about? Well, if you read my posts with some care, perhaps you would know. You have no basis for saying that I have forgotten that previous rulers have done worse things than Cersei. I have made no statements one way or the other about the vast majority of past rulers. Some of them did terrible things, and these things caused horrible problems. So what? 

Let me try, once more, to get across one or two of my main points. The idea that the lords of the Reach would go out and despoil their own lands in order to aid this Lannister "queen" is ludicrous. There are a variety of reasons for making this assertion. One of the reasons is that the lords would find the current condition of the throne to be extremely creepy. The fact that past rulers have done bad things (whether not as bad, the same, or worse than Cersei) is irrelevant. I am talking about the plausibility of actions on the part of a group of lords in the present. 

3. Again, I do not claim that there should have been some kind of popular uprising (riots, peasant revolt, etc.) in King's Landing or anywhere else. I don't think that I have even indicated this. Clearly, some people are opposing Cersei Lannister. In a well-written story, she wouldn't have anywhere near the support she has. 

I have said that many characters acted thoroughly out of character in Season 7. That is one of the main reasons for saying the writing is bad. It has nothing to do with rebellion, end of the world, and other nonsense that you are talking about. 

 

[Jabul]

1 hour ago, Megorova said:

1. When Aerys was their King, Red Keep was way more creepyer. And while Cersei has only one freak maester, Aerys had an entire Guild of Alchemists, and several pyromancers served in the court.

2. Probably people feel nostalgic, when they come into current throne room, with its darkened atmosphere, and faceless guards

1. And many of the lords of Westeros rose against Aerys. He was overthrown and killed. Did you miss that part of the story? Aerys certainly didn't have his pyromancers convince the lords of the Reach to go out and attack Highgarden, kill the defenders of the castle, then rob the peasants of the Reach, leaving them to starve in the winter. 

2. Well, this statement makes about as much sense as a lot of the other bunk you are putting out. 

[falcotron]

23 hours ago, Jabul said:

How do you know that those were the only four people in Dorne who wanted to go to war? Would you mind sharing the name of the pollsters who determined this and give us the data they collected? Dornish lords would have an interest in maintaining their own lands. That does not mean that they would be unwilling to go to war, certainly no more than other lords. Do you deny that the lords of the Vale took their men to war?

How do I know? Because we saw four people who wanted to go to war, and they did go to war, and then they were all captured and killed—and then both Cersei and Tyrion concluded that Dorne was out of the war. And everyone else in-universe agrees with those conclusions. And there's no evidence of any Dornish army contacting Dany, or marching on King's Landing without her and Tyrion knowing about it, or anything else of the sort, We know Dorne is out of the war because the show told us that Dorne is out of the war in about as unambiguous terms as possible. 

23 hours ago, Jabul said:

You may choose to believe that the new leader would be anti-war, but where is the evidence to back this assertion? Terms like "most likely" and "presumably" cannot legitimately be used to jump to the conclusion that a leader would have only peace-loving inclinations. You also don't deal with the ridiculous move the Sand Snakes made. Why the hell would all of them go to Dragonstone? 

The evidence is, again, that Dorne is out of the war. I'm not using the "most likely" to jump to the conclusion. The conclusion is the thing we actually know is true.

I'm only using "most likely" to talk about the most likely reason for it being true. It's only the most likely reason. Maybe the new Princess isn't an isolationist, but is just too weak to call her banners. Or maybe there is no new Princess, and there's a civil war going on that's so well balanced that nobody will be able to seize control until it's too late for either Dany or Cersei to rely on them. That's less likely, but still possible.

But when something is true, and there are multiple plausible reasons it could be true, that isn't a plot hole, or any other kind of problem. The fact that you can imagine some other reason for it not to be true, even though you have to contradict the facts to do so, and then complain that the story you're imagining doesn't make sense because it contradicts those very facts—that's only a problem with the story you're imagining, not a problem with the actual show.

23 hours ago, Jabul said:

You also don't deal with the ridiculous move the Sand Snakes made. Why the hell would all of them go to Dragonstone? 

How is that at all relevant? I'm not making any kind of argument that the show is perfect in every way and nobody has ever done anything stupid on it. I'm just saying that there is no problem with believing that Dorne is out of the war when we're told that Dorne is out of the war, unless you twist yourself into knots to find a problem that isn't there.

23 hours ago, Jabul said:

Notice that Doran makes no attempt to deny the truth of Ellaria's assertions. The essence of his argument is--I'm the leader. I'll make the decisions. An obvious conclusion is that once Doran is gone, the southern kingdom will be willing, even enthusiastic, about attacking the so-called "queen" in King's Landing.  

So, are you arguing that Tyrion and Cersei and everyone else in-universe who disagrees with you all idiots, and that there is actually a Dornish army marching on King's Landing right now that nobody's noticed?

[Jabul]

1 hour ago, Megorova said:

Your grade in logic must have been lower, than the bottom to which Tommen fell.

1. King commited suicide, and seven super good knights weren't able to prevent this.

2. Where were they, when Tommen was taken as a captive by the Mountain? Either all of them were killed by the Mountain ( in which case they weren't good enough to be King's protectors), or Kingsguards as 'institution' were eliminated even before that, by King Tommen himself, when he dismissed Jaime (probably other members of KG he also has send away). In both cases people won't blame Cersei for what happened. In first case it was Tommen's mistake, for not chosing for himself more capable protectors, or it was still Tommen's fault, for dismissing those knights. If people blame anyone for elimination of KG, they blame Tommen.

I doubt quite seriously that you have anything like an adequate grasp of logic. If I were to define the word for you, your reply would probably be to put the word in quotes. 

1. It is not the function of a super good knight to prevent suicide. I suppose you are confusing a knight with a counselor or a psychologist. 

2. Are you unaware of the fact that the Mountain is a member of the Kingsguard? It is quite common for a king to be guarded by one knight. If this knight, for some reason, decides to take the king prisoner, then he can do it. This fact would be blazingly obvious to anyone who understood the rudiments of logic. Now, the other knights should try to do something about the situation. That doesn't mean they would. Given the decline in the quality of governance in KL, maybe they wouldn't. I have maintained that the Kingsguard is an important institution is Westeros. The fact that it is currently in severe decline does not show that it is not an important institution. 

At any rate, I am not aware of any law or tradition that a king cannot be alone in a room. If he decides to jump out of a window, he will jump out of a window. Maintaining that his knights can't be super good because he jumped is the sort of absurdity that I have come to expect from your posts. 

 

[falcotron]

3 hours ago, jcmontea said:

Interesting. I interpreted that as just the weather turned for no divine reason and the irony was he killed his daughter for absolutley nothing leading to his army deserting. His belief in his specialness was his his downfall. 

"Bender, when you do things right, people won't be sure you've done anything at all."

Melisandre definitely does have real magical powers (as well as some fake ones). None of those powers seem to be based on Stannis being special (except maybe the shadowbaby, but probably not even that), even if both she and Stannis seem to think otherwise, but they are still real.

And it would be a bit of a coincidence if the mists just happened to clear up exactly as he burned his daughter—but not a ridiculous coincidence, so we can't really be sure.

The one thing we can be sure of is that, whether him killing his daughter actually had a magical effect or not, it was the wrong thing to do, and it led to his downfall, because it led to half his army deserting and the other half fighting on only out of fatalism, which is an even more serious problem than any mists or snow.

[jcmontea]

5 minutes ago, falcotron said:

"Bender, when you do things right, people won't be sure you've done anything at all."

Melisandre definitely does have real magical powers (as well as some fake ones). None of those powers seem to be based on Stannis being special (except maybe the shadowbaby, but probably not even that), even if both she and Stannis seem to think otherwise, but they are still real.

And it would be a bit of a coincidence if the mists just happened to clear up exactly as he burned his daughter—but not a ridiculous coincidence, so we can't really be sure.

The one thing we can be sure of is that, whether him killing his daughter actually had a magical effect or not, it was the wrong thing to do, and it led to his downfall, because it led to half his army deserting and the other half fighting on only out of fatalism, which is an even more serious problem than any mists or snow.

Agreed. Worst decision ever. 

Stannis is Abraham if he had actually killed Isaac. 

[darmody]

1 hour ago, jcmontea said:

Stannis is Abraham if he had actually killed Isaac. 

I was thinking more Agamemnon, who actually killed Iphigenia. Only he was killed by his wife and her boyfriend, not some giant blonde chick. 

[Rhodan]

3 hours ago, falcotron said:

We know Dorne is out of the war because the show told us that Dorne is out of the war in about as unambiguous terms as possible. 

Well, the plot point shouldn´t be used as it´s own justification, that´s the far too circular for a discussion. Janul´s main argument was that previous plot indicated that entire Dorne wanted to rebel.

[falcotron]

1 hour ago, Rhodan said:

Well, the plot point shouldn´t be used as it´s own justification, that´s the far too circular for a discussion.

This is really the same argument creationists use when they say evolution is stupid because we don't know how australopithecus evolved from chimpanzees, and therefore it can't have happened. Well, it's true that we don't know whether ardipithecus, orrorin, both, or neither are on the line from chimpanzees to australopithecus, but that doesn't mean anything—the fact that we seem to have evolved from chimpanzees, and there are multiple plausible paths for how it could have happened, is enough to show that the argument is nonsense.

Likewise, we don't know exactly what the details are for why Dorne it out of the war. But the fact that we know that Dorne is out of the war, and there are multiple plausible ways that could happen, is enough to show that the argument is nonsense.

I think the show would be better if they explained some of these things instead of leaving it to the viewers (it would literally take one line, in a scene they already had, for Tyrion to tell us something like, say, "Little Sarella Sand wouldn't be able to raise her banners for either side, even if she wanted to"). But that doesn't mean that everything they choose not to explain is a plot hole. Most of it is actually perfectly reasonable, even if sometimes we have to guess between multiple ways things could have gotten there, and that doesn't license us to intentionally guess the least plausible one and insist on it so we can complain about it.

Nobody called "plot hole" when River Lords started calling Robb their king without us finding out whether he had united the Riverlands and the North into one crown, or taken on two separate crowns the way book!Robb did, or just annexed the Riverlands. Whichever one of those happened, he was their king. It may be fun to try to guess which of them happened, as long as you qualify it with "presumably" and "maybe" and the like, but it's not about proving that Robb was their king, because we already know that, and have no reason to dispute it. And this is the exact same situation.

I think at least some people are only calling "plot hole" with Dorne because it's connected to a subplot they justifiably disliked, or because the season felt rushed so the same kind of non-explaining they often do felt less justified this year, or because the show has pushed them over the line into not being a fan anymore for other reasons and now they're looking for more things to complain about, or because they hate Cersei and don't want anything to happen in her favor, etc.

[Beardy the Wildling]

16 hours ago, Jabul said:

Who knows? I sometimes wonder if the entire "the war makes sense" effort on this thread might not be an extended exercise in trolling. That, at least, would be an interesting result. 

The question isn't if this has become a troll thread or not. The question is who's trolling who

[jcmontea]

7 hours ago, darmody said:

I was thinking more Agamemnon, who actually killed Iphigenia. Only he was killed by his wife and her boyfriend, not some giant blonde chick. 

Spoiler

 

Good reference

[SirArthur]

7 hours ago, darmody said:

I was thinking more Agamemnon, who actually killed Iphigenia. Only he was killed by his wife and her boyfriend, not some giant blonde chick. 

Each time someone references greek mythology I have to think about the show arguments for introducing speed travel and the part of my heart reserved for the Odyssey bleeds. I really can't wrap my head around the teleporting. If Odysseus showed one thing, it was that you can make a great saga just out of some travelling. Just imagine Eurons ship adventures from King's Landing to Castle Rock. first a sireen from Dragonstone tries to capture him and his men and he ends up in her prison. Then he has to flee the prison just to wreck in Shipbreaker Bay. And so on. There are so many awesome stories but instead we have to teleport.

[Megorova]

9 hours ago, The Golden Wolf said:

@Megorova....why are you not using multiquote??? 

I'm using it, when I can. But sometimes my PC is glitching, and several quotes don't add in one post. It's not a problem with forum (probably), it's a problem with my PC+forum. My anti-virus program detected lots of mallware, on this forum (script viruses), so the glitches are probably because of interfearance of my anti-virus program, in functioning of posting window. Closer to the end of page 20, whenever I wrote a post, and minutes later wanted to add to it more text, I got a reply, something like - This post can't be edited because it was delited or posted too long ago.

This already happened several times. For now everything works as it should. Sorry for multiple posts.

8 hours ago, Jabul said:

2. Well, this statement makes about as much sense as a lot of the other bunk you are putting out. 

You wrote this:

14 hours ago, Jabul said:

Of course, your post misses the most important point I was making: The utterly creepy nature of the Cersei's court would turn off just about anyone who has any sense of Westerosi traditions. This creepiness includes, Qyburn, the Black Guards, incest, the elevation to high office of a man/thing that confessed to the rape and murder of a princess, etc. Anyone, including the lords of the Reach, coming into the throne room would almost certainly have had the feeling they were entering the Westerosi equivalent of Frankenstein's Lab or The House of Dracula. 

And I wrote:

10 hours ago, Megorova said:

Probably people feel nostalgic, when they come into current throne room, with its darkened atmosphere, and faceless guards

Concerning Westerosi traditions - incestual rulers were a tradition of 7K for nearly 300 years, during reign of House Targaryen. They also used pyromancers, necromancers, and other sorts of black magicians (for example Aerys' father and older brother, who was crown prince, burned alive during dark ritual that went wrong). Also prior Robert's reign, throne room was decorated with giant sculls of dead dragons.

Incest + creepy courticians + scary interior; all of it is traditional for Westeros.

So what doesn't make sense? Or do I need to explain in tiniest details everything I post? I don't think so; other people already complain, that my posts are too long, so I'll spare them  

8 hours ago, Jabul said:

Are you unaware of the fact that the Mountain is a member of the Kingsguard?

I know that Gregor Clegane was a member of Kingsguard, and this 'new person' is also a member of Kingsguard:

"QYBURN: May I have the honor of presenting the newest member of the Kingsguard.

A hulking man, who is revealed to have a blue face through the eye holes in his helm, walks over to Qyburn and Cersei. He takes Cersei in his arms.

QYBURN: If it please Your Grace, he’s taken a holy vow of silence. He has sworn that he will not speak until all his Grace’s enemies are dead, and the evil has been driven from the realm."

He's 1 out of 7, and he served only to Cersei from the moment he 'returned'. So where were other 6 Kingsguards, that were supposed to protect Tommen, and to be his escort? Or was he supposed to come to the Sept alone, without any escort? Or is it that all people in Red Keep, and in the Sept thought that, yes, King Tommen will come here escorted by Cersei's personal bodyguard Ser Creep, that's why no one else went to him?

Are you not aware that you contradict your own posts? You're arguing with yourself - in one post you write

9 hours ago, Jabul said:

It is quite common for a king to be guarded by one knight. If this knight, for some reason, decides to take the king prisoner, then he can do it.

According to you the Mountain is a member of a Kingsguard (not only according to you, he really IS a member of KG), so he has a right to be near King.

So why should people be creeped out by his presence near Queen Cersei?

14 hours ago, Jabul said:

This creepiness includes

the elevation to high office of a man/thing that confessed to the rape and murder of a princess, etc.

Some people knew about his crimes, even before his public confession. It was a common knowledge that the Mountain and one more member of Lannister's knights killed Aegon's wife and two children. Though people never complained, or argued whether he should be allowed to be a KG. 

Let's end this argument, it goes in circles.

2 hours ago, Beardy the Wildling said:

The question isn't if this has become a troll thread or not. The question is who's trolling who

hint (everyone is trolling everyone ) hint

[Jabul]

9 hours ago, falcotron said:

How do I know? Because we saw four people who wanted to go to war, and they did go to war, and then they were all captured and killed—and then both Cersei and Tyrion concluded that Dorne was out of the war. And everyone else in-universe agrees with those conclusions. And there's no evidence of any Dornish army contacting Dany, or marching on King's Landing without her and Tyrion knowing about it, or anything else of the sort, We know Dorne is out of the war because the show told us that Dorne is out of the war in about as unambiguous terms as possible. 

...

For now, I'll take one element of your extremely weak case and analyze it. Accordingly, I present--

Argument I

Joe said that only four people in the United States of America supported Hillary Clinton.

Donald Trump won the presidential election. He is now president. There is no one in-universe who denies he is president. There are no Hillary-appointed members of the cabinet. 

Therefore, what Joe said is true. 

Do you actually believe that this argument is valid? It is of the same form as--

Argument II

Falcotron said that only four people in Dorne wanted to go to war. 

These four people were captured or killed. Cersei, Tyrion, and everyone else in-universe agrees that Dorne is out of the war. 

Therefore, what falcotron said is true. 

Neither one of these arguments is valid. Actually, I'd say that I is slightly better than II, but there's no need to go into that now. 

Do you maintain that Argument II is strong? If so, why? If not, what is your basis for saying that only four people in Dorne wanted to go to war?