Is there a logical contradiction here?

Gnostic Mom writes:

"Time" travel is a misnomer.  In order to move about in time, one must also move in space.  A more accurate term would therefore be "space-time travel".  Regardless of "when" you might arrive in the past, the painstaking calculations necessary to allow you to arrive at an absolutely precise and safe location are, I think, prohibitive.  So when you get into your time machine and pull that lever, you are most likely going to arrive in the past floating around in the middle of space.  And regardless of the method of activating your time machine, you are still going to arrive in the past "after" you have activated it.  That's why it's called "the past".

TrappedPrior (RotE) writes:

They probably meant something like 'fast travel'. We're in 2021, but you can press a button/flip a switch/pull a lever/whatever and 'teleport' to 2022, for instance, instead of having to wait out the rest of the year.

But your answer - though unexpected - is actually a good one, I think. It is a word game, since the future is technically any unseen time forward from the current point in time. Yesterday, I thought about today, and 24 hours later, I arrived at it. 

Bo Bennett, PhD writes:
[To Rationalissimus of the Elenchus]

If they meant fast or instant travel, I would still argue it is a problem with linguistics at best. "Future" by definition means what it does because that's the meaning we gave it. Clearly, none of us understand time travel so we can't conflate the logical impossibility of time travel with the the words we use for time travel having logical problems. The best analogy I can think of on the spot the "married bachelor." We can take a bachelor and marry him off, but then he is no longer a bachelor. "The future, by definition, does not exist in the present..." right, but when in the future, it is no longer the future and is now the present.

For any more clarification on this matter, I refer you to Dr. Emmett Brown.