I'm having difficulty in articulating this idea without giving a long bloated explanation when calling it out.
The idea is where somebody states a vague generally agreeable and innocuous premise in an attempt to get the other person to accept/subscribe to the rest of their argument or doctrine or whatever... Once you accept their initial premise, you are expected to accept the rest of the baggage that comes with it - that usually was never mention beforehand.
It's usually a deceptive tactic and I'm not sure if there's a name for it.
It's also commonly used in relation of political issues - "Are you for equality*" or "Are you against terrorists*", then you must vote for this policy/laws (which usually has additional conditions and requirements that may not be agreeable).
I'd like to convey that it's like a Trojan horse where they deceptively sneak in extra conditions under the cover of something innocuous. But a Trojan horse isn't exactly right and usually gets people to think of a different connotation related more to war.
So what's the best way of phrasing it, when calling out someone that's doing it and explain to other people what tactic is being employed?