• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

The latest left wing newspeak meme

Gaugingcatenate said:
Trump? What about Trump?

Whatta ya wanna know?

About the inspired and rapidly growing economy, the exponential growth in investments, normal, repatriated and foreign, hundreds of billions, or lifting the regulatory chains that bind American businesses and workers, cutting taxes for everybody and our corporate rates allowing us, American businesses, to be more competitive world wide, driving ISIS out of their safe havens in the loss of their oil rich funding caliphate state, rounding up and kicking out the violently mass murderous MS13, getting us out of a stupid and economically brain dead Paris Accord, wages and bonuses up, unemployment way down in every conceivable area, getting NATO allies to pony up their fair an agreed upon share, etc, etc, etc?...oh, and an excellent Supreme Court justice.

That?
Click to expand...

19 women said Trump assaulted or harassed them.
 
Checkerboard Strangler said:
I wasn't ever ON the show.
I was a camera op and an editor...my producers were Russians.
Our audience were Russians.
We produced material here in L.A. and also went back and forth to the Soviet Union, and later when it was no longer the USSR.
Also...side note, my father was one of the original SALT Talk negotiators. He was a nuclear physicist during the Cold War at the Pentagon. (Defense Atomic Support Agency - later named the Defense Nuclear Agency)

Look, I gather that NO ONE, not even Putin himself, would convince YOU, the self described "expert", that Russia is meddling in our affairs to a very large extent. I've put what I know out there, not just in my piddling couple of posts here in this thread but in numerous other threads on this forum.
Anyone who follows me or any number of other people here have seen and read my arguments and theirs already, so this is out there now, and it doesn't matter if you believe it.

At some point enough will be revealed that you won't be able to deny it.
I can lay money on that. A lot of people like yourself will be in shock.
Click to expand...

Interesting; so what is Trump's connection in all this?
 
Mycroft said:
LOL!!

Nice attempt at rationalization. Too bad it's a fail.

Bush wasn't responsible for the crash and Obama owns his sluggish recovery.

Whataboutism isn't a red herring. It's pointing out hypocrisy.
Click to expand...

Oh yeah, you counter and argument that actually provided reasoning with the equivalent of "nuh uh, then just repeat the same false fact" Is there seriously such a thing has an intelligent, honest right winger? This is getting absurd how dumb these posts are
 
ReverendHellh0und said:
"whataboutism" is just the liberal talking point of avoiding discussing the crimes and hypocrisy of their ilk.


For example, the only "Collusion" we have actual evidence of is with hillary and the democrat party. Mention that in a thread and you get spoiled little liberal brats screeching "whataboutism" and refusing to address their hypocrisy.
Click to expand...

I guess the question is, what's the relevance of the actions of someone else, when discussing someone in particular.

To me, whataboutery is an automatic concession. You can't defend, so you (universal you, not talking about you personally, Rev) deflect and talk about something / someone else. You might be 100% correct in what you're saying, but it's a frustrating tactic for people trying to stay on topic, which is why it tends to draw so much hate, if I had to guess.

Bringing up someone else's actions would be fine if it was relevant - the economy is in the tank not just because of this president, but also because of the actions of the last, for example. But if the topic is the person - Trump was a pig when he talked about grabbing *****, for example, then while bringing up Bill Clinton's behavior might be factual, it's whataboutery, since it wasn't about Clinton to begin with.

That's what I'm going on, anyway...what do you think?
 
Mycroft said:
Nice attempt at rationalization. Too bad it's a fail.

Bush wasn't responsible for the crash and Obama owns his sluggish recovery.
Click to expand...

Right. When it's a republican president and things go bad, he's not responsible. But when it's a democrat president and things don't get better fast enough, he's responsible.

I imagine you don't really hear yourself. What you say above is so obviously biased it's painful. Not surprising, mind you. But painful.

Mycroft said:
Whataboutism isn't a red herring. It's pointing out hypocrisy.
Click to expand...

It would only be pointing out hypocrisy if the new topic were relevant to the old, which it usually is not. Hillary's emails have nothing to do with the sluggish recovery.
 
Last edited:
OlNate said:
I guess the question is, what's the relevance of the actions of someone else, when discussing someone in particular.

To me, whataboutery is an automatic concession. You can't defend, so you (universal you, not talking about you personally, Rev) deflect and talk about something / someone else. You might be 100% correct in what you're saying, but it's a frustrating tactic for people trying to stay on topic, which is why it tends to draw so much hate, if I had to guess.

Bringing up someone else's actions would be fine if it was relevant - the economy is in the tank not just because of this president, but also because of the actions of the last, for example. But if the topic is the person - Trump was a pig when he talked about grabbing *****, for example, then while bringing up Bill Clinton's behavior might be factual, it's whataboutery, since it wasn't about Clinton to begin with.

That's what I'm going on, anyway...what do you think?
Click to expand...



I think if you have a thread on "trump and russian collusion" pointing out the only evidence of "collusion" with a foreign agent thus far has been between hillary and the DNC is an appropriate point to make.


I think that if one brings up another point to show the hypocrisy of the person making the point that is fair game. I think if you bring someone else up to justify the behavior of the other person, then you have "whataboutism"

Whataboutism has morphed into a deflection to not discuss the obvious hypocrisy some have on numerous issues.

For example there are a couple threads on this porter guy and trump and classified information. While the guy had an interim clearance, hillary, whom these same people defend to this day, broke actual laws in regards to the handling and dissemination of classified information.

Several posters response to this was screeching "whataboutism!!!!!!" when it's a perfect point to make to show those upset about porter in this manner, defended actual crimes by a person on their side.


Does it mean that the interim clearance was not careless? of course not, it seems it was very cavilier in it's authorization. however to start and comment in a thread about how horrible this is while still defending hillary's actual crimes shows hypocrisy, not "whataboutism".
 
Sampson Simpson said:
Oh yeah, you counter and argument that actually provided reasoning with the equivalent of "nuh uh, then just repeat the same false fact" Is there seriously such a thing has an intelligent, honest right winger? This is getting absurd how dumb these posts are
Click to expand...

Reasoning? I assume you are talking about the contention that Bush needs to be blamed for the crash. Sorry, but that's not reasoning. Or, maybe you are blaming the sluggish recovery on the Bush-created crash? Again, this is wrong. The sluggish recovery is primarily a result of Obama/Democrat policies and legislation that inhibited businesses.

LOL!! This is gonna chap your ass, but the fact is...if Trump had been elected President in 2008, our economy would have recovered in 2 years. We wouldn't have had to endure 8 years of a "sluggish recovery" at all.
 
ashurbanipal said:
Right. When it's a republican president and things go bad, he's not responsible. But when it's a democrat president and things don't get better fast enough, he's responsible.

I imagine you don't really hear yourself. What you say above is so obviously biased it's painful. Not surprising, mind you. But painful.
Click to expand...

The truth is painful only to those who insist on denying it.

Fact: There were a lot of factors...over more than a decade...that caused the crash. Bush played a part, but so did the Democrats going back through 8 years of Clinton. So did the actions of people in the financial sector. And so did the Republicans and Democrats in Congress. Bush is not responsible for the crash. The blame goes to a lot of people...from both parties...both in and out of the government.

Fact: Obama/Democrat policy and legislation suppressed, inhibited and hindered the possibility of a quick economic recovery. The "government" cannot cause the economy to recover, they can only aid or hinder the recovery. Obama and his Democratic Congress did everything they could to hinder the recovery. The result: A totally unnecessary sluggish recovery. He owns it.

Which is still a red herring...or I suppose it can be a tu quoque ad hominem, depending on how it's used.
Click to expand...
 
Eh. Adam Schiff gets my vote for most recent political hypocrisy in congress for saying the GOP memo reveals too many sources and methods of the American intelligence community, then allegedly doing the same thing according to the White House, revealing sources and methods of the American intelligence community with the initial finished product of the dem memo. BTW, which parts of the GOP memo reveal which sources and methods of the American intelligence community?
 
ReverendHellh0und said:
I think if you have a thread on "trump and russian collusion" pointing out the only evidence of "collusion" with a foreign agent thus far has been between hillary and the DNC is an appropriate point to make.


I think that if one brings up another point to show the hypocrisy of the person making the point that is fair game. I think if you bring someone else up to justify the behavior of the other person, then you have "whataboutism"

Whataboutism has morphed into a deflection to not discuss the obvious hypocrisy some have on numerous issues.

For example there are a couple threads on this porter guy and trump and classified information. While the guy had an interim clearance, hillary, whom these same people defend to this day, broke actual laws in regards to the handling and dissemination of classified information.

Several posters response to this was screeching "whataboutism!!!!!!" when it's a perfect point to make to show those upset about porter in this manner, defended actual crimes by a person on their side.


Does it mean that the interim clearance was not careless? of course not, it seems it was very cavilier in it's authorization. however to start and comment in a thread about how horrible this is while still defending hillary's actual crimes shows hypocrisy, not "whataboutism".
Click to expand...

If Hillary was exonerated in the OP, then ya, sure. But I think the if the topic is about Trump and Russian collusion, it should be about that, and not hypocrisy, unless it's relevant to whether not Russian collusion was involved with Trump. (Not debating the topic, just following along with your example). If you want to discuss the hypocrisy of the Left in their treatment of Trump in the context of allegations of Russian interference (again, universal you), start your own thread, I'm sure DP has the hard drive space. :)

Trying to change the topic from "Trump and Russian collusion" to "the hypocrisy of the Left" is a derailment of the OP in your example. If there's an example of the Left leaning folks doing that, it would be just as annoying and disrespectful. If nothing else, not engaging in whataboutery would make debate here a lot more fun, and a lot less than a drunken brawl (which, ok, is kinda fun from time to time). Adhering to a little more discipline in our threads, by all sides, wouldn't be a bad thing...
 
OlNate said:
If Hillary was exonerated in the OP, then ya, sure. But I think the if the topic is about Trump and Russian collusion, it should be about that, and not hypocrisy, unless it's relevant to whether not Russian collusion was involved with Trump. (Not debating the topic, just following along with your example). If you want to discuss the hypocrisy of the Left in their treatment of Trump in the context of allegations of Russian interference (again, universal you), start your own thread, I'm sure DP has the hard drive space. :)

Trying to change the topic from "Trump and Russian collusion" to "the hypocrisy of the Left" is a derailment of the OP in your example. If there's an example of the Left leaning folks doing that, it would be just as annoying and disrespectful. If nothing else, not engaging in whataboutery would make debate here a lot more fun, and a lot less than a drunken brawl (which, ok, is kinda fun from time to time). Adhering to a little more discipline in our threads, by all sides, wouldn't be a bad thing...
Click to expand...



I disagree that it's "changing the topic" it's a fair question to ask if a person is not outraged by "A", what is their motivation to be outraged at "B"? I think that motivation plays an important role in having "Discipline" in debate. if you are only outraged at the other guy but give your guy a pass, you are not being objective but hyper partisan.


Furthermore this "whataboutism" is a democrat party talking point to shield Hillary. Bush was blamed for every bad thing that happened under Obama, Palin was brought up in threads for years. Suddenly "whataboutism" is this bad thing?

It's a deflection to avoid explaining ones cognitive dissonance or hyper-partisanism.


for example.


Obama is an evil chicken hawk who's killed 1000's of civillians he should be tried for war crimes.

If I started that thread, how many posts do you think it would take before one of the people who scream about "whataboutism" would mention bush?
 
Mycroft said:
We just got done with 8 years of "It's Bush's fault" and "But Bush did it too...and worse".

So...why not 8 years of "Obama". At least we actually have some corrupt Obama stuff to talk about.
Click to expand...

Mycroft complaining about whataboutism by engaging in whataboutism. It must be a compulsive disorder.
 
Why people keep talking about Hillary:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...a059f168dd2_story.html?utm_term=.529bdf8052d5

https://www.cnn.com/2018/02/07/politics/republicans-sidney-blumenthal-russia-dossier/index.html

Sid Blumenthal and Cody Shearer put together information to give to Steele. Both Blumenthal and Shearer worked for or with Clinton. Meanwhile the information is leaked in parts to news agencies to make it look verified, and leaked at State through Winer to lend it credibility when it lands as part of an investigation through some avenue.

That's not even my opinions, that's what the stories I am linking to say. Clinton used the departments of the Federal government to run a disinformation op on a Presidential candidate that later because the President. It doesn't get much dirtier than that.
 
ReverendHellh0und said:
I disagree that it's "changing the topic" it's a fair question to ask if a person is not outraged by "A", what is their motivation to be outraged at "B"? I think that motivation plays an important role in having "Discipline" in debate. if you are only outraged at the other guy but give your guy a pass, you are not being objective but hyper partisan.


Furthermore this "whataboutism" is a democrat party talking point to shield Hillary. Bush was blamed for every bad thing that happened under Obama, Palin was brought up in threads for years. Suddenly "whataboutism" is this bad thing?

It's a deflection to avoid explaining ones cognitive dissonance or hyper-partisanism.


for example.


Obama is an evil chicken hawk who's killed 1000's of civillians he should be tried for war crimes.

If I started that thread, how many posts do you think it would take before one of the people who scream about "whataboutism" would mention bush?
Click to expand...

To answer your last question first, I'm not sure, but they would be equally guilty of whataboutery in my estimation, and your complaint would be as valid as those who complain about trying to talk about Trump, and being derailed into defending Clinton (if that's something they would bother to try to do). They should be called out for that.

But as someone who sometimes, or even often, agrees with the facts and notions brought up in whataboutery, I still think it is the true "deflection to avoid explaining ones cognitive dissonance or hyper-partisanism." I think the only mistake that is made is suggesting that whataboutery is the exclusive territory of one side or the other. Rather, it seems to be a bit of lazy fall back position for people who don't have the ability to debate the original topic, but are too partisan to give the W to "the other side", so keep fighting on, even if about something else.

I think there's a fair amount of wiggle room...I don't think DP is hard line debate etiquette only, sometimes there's interesting things to be discussed in the tangents. But, as happens very often, when someone comes on a thread about one thing, says nothing about the actual topic, but busts out with "Ya, but you're fine with {fill in unrelated thing here}"...that's weak.
 
OlNate said:
To answer your last question first, I'm not sure, but they would be equally guilty of whataboutery in my estimation, and your complaint would be as valid as those who complain about trying to talk about Trump, and being derailed into defending Clinton (if that's something they would bother to try to do). They should be called out for that.

But as someone who sometimes, or even often, agrees with the facts and notions brought up in whataboutery, I still think it is the true "deflection to avoid explaining ones cognitive dissonance or hyper-partisanism." I think the only mistake that is made is suggesting that whataboutery is the exclusive territory of one side or the other. Rather, it seems to be a bit of lazy fall back position for people who don't have the ability to debate the original topic, but are too partisan to give the W to "the other side", so keep fighting on, even if about something else.

I think there's a fair amount of wiggle room...I don't think DP is hard line debate etiquette only, sometimes there's interesting things to be discussed in the tangents. But, as happens very often, when someone comes on a thread about one thing, says nothing about the actual topic, but busts out with "Ya, but you're fine with {fill in unrelated thing here}"...that's weak.
Click to expand...




I think you miss my point. I don't feel it's a black or white thing, There is deflection examples, "but what about bush" etc, or whatnot to me is different than "how can you hold the opinion that person "A" did wrong when you felt that person "B" who also did the same or more or lesser thing did not do wrong.


That to me is a valid question.
 
Cardinal said:
Mycroft complaining about whataboutism by engaging in whataboutism. It must be a compulsive disorder.
Click to expand...

I'm not complaining. I'm encouraging.

LOL!!
 
ReverendHellh0und said:
I think you miss my point. I don't feel it's a black or white thing, There is deflection examples, "but what about bush" etc, or whatnot to me is different than "how can you hold the opinion that person "A" did wrong when you felt that person "B" who also did the same or more or lesser thing did not do wrong.


That to me is a valid question.
Click to expand...

Ok, fine, I can give you that, but I've been pulled into that trap here enough times:

"Ya, sure, but you're good with Bill Clinton being a pervert".

"No, I'm not'.

"Ya right, all you lefties are the same, hypocrites".

"No, seriously, I'm not good with Clinton's behavior"

"Well where was your outrage when it went down then?"

"I wasn't a DP member. Can we get back to the topic?"

"Oh sure, you wanna talk about Trump, but not Clinton. Guess it's ok when a Dem does it".

"FFS!" ... and then I usually say something that earns me DP demerit points...hehe

You can see, after having that exact same exchange countless times here, why I tend to look at it rather suspiciously.
 
OlNate said:
Ok, fine, I can give you that, but I've been pulled into that trap here enough times:

"Ya, sure, but you're good with Bill Clinton being a pervert".

"No, I'm not'.

"Ya right, all you lefties are the same, hypocrites".

"No, seriously, I'm not good with Clinton's behavior"

"Well where was your outrage when it went down then?"

"I wasn't a DP member. Can we get back to the topic?"

"Oh sure, you wanna talk about Trump, but not Clinton. Guess it's ok when a Dem does it".

"FFS!" ... and then I usually say something that earns me DP demerit points...hehe

You can see, after having that exact same exchange countless times here, why I tend to look at it rather suspiciously.
Click to expand...




This isn't whataboutism but a classic strawman.
 
ReverendHellh0und said:
This isn't whataboutism but a classic strawman.
Click to expand...

Ok, fair nuff...I can handle the difference in opinion on terminology, so long as we both agree it's ****ty debate behavior that should be called out by both sides when either side does it, as it is an effective, if tired, method of derailing a thread, done to take the pressure off the side of the issue one wishes to defend, when that side is indefensible, either due to the fact that it is indefensible, or the person trying to defend it is ill equipped to do so. :)
 
it's just me said:
You can rest assured that the next time they are on the hook for anything they will be saying "what about Trump?"
Click to expand...

I think you have this all backward. You see your side keeps trying to claim that Hillary Clinton probably did n. What we point out is the fact that Trump is definitely guilty of n * 10. We're also pointing out that Hillary Clinton is not now nor has she ever been the President, and she's almost certainly never running again.

You see the Republican party keeps taking cheaper and cheaper shots. Lowering the bar for decency until nothing is sacred and all is fair. Then when Democrats have no choice, but to fight with the same tactics you try and claim we're going it while ignoring the reality that you started it.

It's like pulling a gun on someone and starting to shoot. You force the other person to pull their gun and start shooting as well. Now that you've started the shooting we have no choice, but to keep returning fire until you stop shooting and put down your gun, or we kill you. Given that most Republicans are elderly, and most Democrats are much younger we're going to outlast you and win eventually. The question is how long will you make this pointless fight last.
 
haymarket said:
The right wing has very few arrows in their quiver to defend Trump with and so they are loath to give up this one that they have glommed onto like grim death.

Sorry Trump apologists - whataboutism is NOT an intellectual argument because at its core is the basic idea of two wrongs do not make a right. Pointing out that a previous democrat did something that might be passing similar years ago is NOT an argument for defending the current actions of Trump.
Click to expand...

No, but it is good for pointing out hypocrisy.
 
holbritter said:
No, but it is good for pointing out hypocrisy.
Click to expand...

no - its just right wing whataboutism that has no substance or point to it other than to pretend that all the crap Trump does is okay because somebody else used the toilet previously.
 
it's just me said:
It's called "whataboutism". If you point out their hypocrisy in ignoring the crimes of their own party as they complain about the other guys, you'll hear "but, but whataboutism" as if nothing their guys did ever mattered.

Don't fall for it, it's just another way to stifle free speech and debate. You can be rest assured that the next time they are on the hook for anything they will be saying "what about Trump?" and won't even acknowledge that they ever started the "whataboutism" thing.
Click to expand...
"Lock her up!"

Biggest whataboutists on earth are Right Wing hypocrites.
 
haymarket said:
no - its just right wing whataboutism that has no substance or point to it other than to pretend that all the crap Trump does is okay because somebody else used the toilet previously.
Click to expand...

Okay, whatever you say. You know everything
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom