Discussion in 'SMB' started by box2box, Oct 10, 2018.
Thus is how I imagine @Frijj to look like (is he banned again?)
Erm.. Maintaining some sort of perspective ?
Nah man, he's been a lefty his whole life but it makes perfecr sense to become right wing when someone without any clout goes too lefty.
Never said I was right wing, far from it, but I don't support this current lefty movement. It's anti-democracy imo. I'm a centrist now if anything.
Go post something pro-Trump on the Trump thread for a laugh and watch the insults come flooding in. There's no debate, it's a "you're an idiot racist/nazi/fascist" pile on.
Was she in the Housemartins?
There's something in the notion that both the left and right can be threats to democracy, but that's hardly a new thing ("the dictatorship of the proletariat" being a fascinating bit of doublespeak). What I can't get my head around is how people think they're somehow defending democracy by supporting Trump, whose policies are pure right-wing handouts to corporations and the rich, whose party engages in active vote suppression, and who leads chants calling for his political opponents to be put in jail and their right to assemble in public be curtailed.
I think using whataboutisms is a shitty, dishonest way to have a debate.. but just for you I'll make an exception..
Obama's war on whistleblowers
Obama's Legacy: A Historic War on Whistleblowers
Democrats continuously rigging votes
DNC Leaks: Proof Democrats Manipulate Voters With Religion, Race
Democrats suppressing free speech
Protesters nearly derail Dave Rubin speech at UNH
etc etc etc
Trump is a fucking idiot, make no mistake, but when given the choice between him and Crooked Hillary it's a no-brainer imo.
That’s because you’re at least one of those four things you describe, and probably two.
Haway then which two? (I'm gonna enjoy this)
1) This is a valid criticism of Obama (and especially Holder, who was the AG) as to the journalists. Trump has suggested doing exactly the same thing, however (Trump’s Urging That Comey Jail Reporters Denounced as an ‘Act of Intimidation’).
I have absolutely zero sympathy for US government employees or contractors with security clearances who leak classified information to the public or media. There are established channels for raising concerns about secret activity. Leaking it to the media is not one.
2) Rigging their own party's primary - which they did - is not even close to the same level of malice as actively suppressing votes in an actual election, which the Republicans have been doing on an ongoing basis for years.
3) Asshole protesters shouting someone down is not remotely the same as the President of the United States suggesting that people should not be able to protest or that his political opponents should be jailed. One is private citizens engaging in abominable behavior. The other is a governmental official directly advocating the abrogation of a fundamental Constitutional right that he has sworn to uphold by taking the oath of office.
That's not even effective whataboutism, which is a shitty tactic as you acknowledged. The sins of the Republican side and Trump in particular are infinitely worse on two of three points, in my view, and they're not streets behind on the first one. But the first one relates to Obama, not Clinton, so unless we're going to paint over the myriad differences between those two people (and between Eric Holder and anyone Clinton would appoint as AG, who would be more competent solely by dint of being almost anyone else) I don't think that makes your point as effectively as you seem to.
Proof? Link? Anything?
Ditto? Link? Proof? Anything?
Are you serious? These are hardly obscure things.
2) Here is one of many, many examples from a Republican-controlled state: Former Florida GOP leaders say voter suppression was reason they pushed new election law. Here's another: Seven Ways Alabama Has Made It Harder to Vote. Another: Our Turn: Arizona's perfect storm of voter suppression
3) Full Transcript Of Trump’s Oval Office Interview With The Daily Caller ("I think it’s embarrassing for the country to allow protesters"); If you beat up a protester at Trump’s rally, he’ll cover your legal fees. - suggesting his supporters beat up protestors; Trump accuses Hillary Clinton of colluding with Russia as crowd chants 'lock her up' (this is from YESTERDAY!).
Come on, man.
Jesus christ, one of the most dishonest, cherry-picked posts I've seen on SMB.
Full Trump quote re: Interruptions at the Kavanaugh hearing due to protesters, with your line highlighted:
THE DAILY CALLER: “Can I ask you about the Kavanaugh hearing today?”
THE DAILY CALLER: “Democrats have put on quite a show, have you kept up with it?”
POTUS: “A good show or a bad show?”
THE DAILY CALLER: “I’ll leave that up to you, sir.”
THE DAILY CALLER: “Have you seen some of it? It’s been a lot of protests and interrrupting.”
POTUS: “I’m amazed that people allow the interruption to continue. You know, there are some people that just keep screaming at the same people. In the old days we used to throw them out. Today I guess they just keep screaming. I thought Sen. Hatch was good because he was very indignant at the interruptions by a woman that was up there that just kept going on and on. I don’t know why they don’t, why they don’t take care of a situation like that because it’s terrible. I think it’s embarrassing for the country to allow protesters, you don’t even know which side the protesters were on. But to allow someone to stand up and scream from the top of their lungs and nobody does anything about it is frankly — I think it’s an embarrassment. I think, well it’s really early stages, but I think the Democrats are grasping at straws, that looks like to me. It’s incredible how bipartisan everything, when you look at how the opposite, I mean, when you look at how the level of division between the two sides, it’s sort of incredible.
As for the other 2 points, you know that Trump doesn't make individual state laws yet have tried to insinuate he does to make a point. Very dishonest mate. You've also tried to say changing state laws = rigging votes(???).
Shame on you.
No possible context ever makes the President of United States saying "it's embarrassing for the country to allow protesters" ever acceptable. It literally doesn't matter what he said before, after, or what the question asked.
As for the rest, read the original point I made: the voter suppression was about HIS PARTY. And his party certainly does make state laws. And I did not say "rigging" with respect to their activity. I said "suppressing." If you can't figure out why selective vote suppression is a bad thing for the country, then I'm not going to bother explaining it, as you clearly don't have a very good grasp of the words in front of you. Your utter lack of reading comprehension is your fault, not mine. Or, alternatively, your engaging in a deliberate misinterpretation of my words because you have no useful answer to what I actually said is every bit as bad as your admitted "whataboutism."
You've still presented no actual argument, by the way. So let's leave it here.
Separate names with a comma.