Repubs most used defense of Moore, Trump or any controversy is ”Whataboutism”

[C_Clayton_Jones]

I wish I could say I coined this term. I learned it from John Oliver.

The term refers to Republicans /Rightwingers childish debate strategy when defending a fellow rightie. It’s incredibly common on this forum. Sean Hannity pathetically does the same thing on his show all the time.

So for instance, if someone were to bring up Moore’s assault allegations, people like Hannity will say “well what about Clinton? What about his history with sexual misconduct?!”

Now, this isn’t to say we shouldn’t put a spotlight on some questionable details about Clinton’s association with misconduct from the past, but it needs to be in a separate conversation if the conversation was originally about Moore. Of course what’s mostly pathetic about this example is that cons will say they are convinced Clinton is a sexual predator but will pretend Moore is completely innocent. It’s ridiculous.

This childish tactic is also relevant to Trump. Anytime Trump is on the defensive, we hear “well what about Hillary/Obama Derp, Derp, Derp!”

Can’t RWs have an honest conversation about something?

No.

If rightists aren't lying about something they’re engaging in a failed attempt to deflect.

Conservatives: masters of the red herring fallacy.

 

[HappyJoy]

Looks like Roy Moore just lost Sean Hannity.

Hannity Gives Roy Moore 24 Hours To Clean Up His Story Or Drop Out

I guess Sean Hannity is now officially owned by k-cups and Volvos.

 

[Mac1958]

I wish I could say I coined this term. I learned it from John Oliver.

The term refers to Republicans /Rightwingers childish debate strategy when defending a fellow rightie. It’s incredibly common on this forum. Sean Hannity pathetically does the same thing on his show all the time.

So for instance, if someone were to bring up Moore’s assault allegations, people like Hannity will say “well what about Clinton? What about his history with sexual misconduct?!”

Now, this isn’t to say we shouldn’t put a spotlight on some questionable details about Clinton’s association with misconduct from the past, but it needs to be in a separate conversation if the conversation was originally about Moore. Of course what’s mostly pathetic about this example is that cons will say they are convinced Clinton is a sexual predator but will pretend Moore is completely innocent. It’s ridiculous.

This childish tactic is also relevant to Trump. Anytime Trump is on the defensive, we hear “well what about Hillary/Obama Derp, Derp, Derp!”

Can’t RWs have an honest conversation about something?

You don't really think that deflection is unique to the Right, do you?

Holy crap, you've gotta be kidding me.

Watch, after the next jihadist atrocity, somebody here says something similar to ""what about the Crusades?"

Why are partisans on both ends so blind to the stuff they do, that they blame the other for? Fer fuck's sake.
.

I would agree that liberals are in denial about Islam, but I don’t ever hear that on this forum. Usually when they defend Muslims, they don’t deny the extremism, they just say all religions have the same amount. This is something I disagree with, however.

The Left does the same spin/deflect/attack approach after every jihadist atrocity. "What about".

That's just one example. Partisans on both ends do this constantly when something goes to shit on their "side".

Deflection is one of the primary, maybe THE primary, dishonest tactic of both ends. Denial of that is silly.
.

 

[Mac1958]

Looks like Roy Moore just lost Sean Hannity.

Hannity Gives Roy Moore 24 Hours To Clean Up His Story Or Drop Out

I guess Sean Hannity is now officially owned by k-cups and Volvos.

Funny to watch.

I swear, people are so ready to completely lose their shit at the slightest provocation.

A fucking coffee maker? Really?
.

 

[Billy000]

I wish I could say I coined this term. I learned it from John Oliver.

The term refers to Republicans /Rightwingers childish debate strategy when defending a fellow rightie. It’s incredibly common on this forum. Sean Hannity pathetically does the same thing on his show all the time.

So for instance, if someone were to bring up Moore’s assault allegations, people like Hannity will say “well what about Clinton? What about his history with sexual misconduct?!”

Now, this isn’t to say we shouldn’t put a spotlight on some questionable details about Clinton’s association with misconduct from the past, but it needs to be in a separate conversation if the conversation was originally about Moore. Of course what’s mostly pathetic about this example is that cons will say they are convinced Clinton is a sexual predator but will pretend Moore is completely innocent. It’s ridiculous.

This childish tactic is also relevant to Trump. Anytime Trump is on the defensive, we hear “well what about Hillary/Obama Derp, Derp, Derp!”

Can’t RWs have an honest conversation about something?

You don't really think that deflection is unique to the Right, do you?

Holy crap, you've gotta be kidding me.

Watch, after the next jihadist atrocity, somebody here says something similar to ""what about the Crusades?"

Why are partisans on both ends so blind to the stuff they do, that they blame the other for? Fer fuck's sake.
.

I would agree that liberals are in denial about Islam, but I don’t ever hear that on this forum. Usually when they defend Muslims, they don’t deny the extremism, they just say all religions have the same amount. This is something I disagree with, however.

The Left does the same spin/deflect/attack approach after every jihadist atrocity. "What about".

That's just one example. Partisans on both ends do this constantly when something goes to shit on their "side".

Deflection is one of the primary, maybe THE primary, dishonest tactic of both ends. Denial of that is silly.
.

I get that you have this balanced, fair mentality about the irrationality of both ends of the spectrum, but you are mistaken. Yes, irrationality and stupidity is present on the left, but the point is, these qualities are much more common on the right.

 

[Mac1958]

I wish I could say I coined this term. I learned it from John Oliver.

The term refers to Republicans /Rightwingers childish debate strategy when defending a fellow rightie. It’s incredibly common on this forum. Sean Hannity pathetically does the same thing on his show all the time.

So for instance, if someone were to bring up Moore’s assault allegations, people like Hannity will say “well what about Clinton? What about his history with sexual misconduct?!”

Now, this isn’t to say we shouldn’t put a spotlight on some questionable details about Clinton’s association with misconduct from the past, but it needs to be in a separate conversation if the conversation was originally about Moore. Of course what’s mostly pathetic about this example is that cons will say they are convinced Clinton is a sexual predator but will pretend Moore is completely innocent. It’s ridiculous.

This childish tactic is also relevant to Trump. Anytime Trump is on the defensive, we hear “well what about Hillary/Obama Derp, Derp, Derp!”

Can’t RWs have an honest conversation about something?

You don't really think that deflection is unique to the Right, do you?

Holy crap, you've gotta be kidding me.

Watch, after the next jihadist atrocity, somebody here says something similar to ""what about the Crusades?"

Why are partisans on both ends so blind to the stuff they do, that they blame the other for? Fer fuck's sake.
.

I would agree that liberals are in denial about Islam, but I don’t ever hear that on this forum. Usually when they defend Muslims, they don’t deny the extremism, they just say all religions have the same amount. This is something I disagree with, however.

The Left does the same spin/deflect/attack approach after every jihadist atrocity. "What about".

That's just one example. Partisans on both ends do this constantly when something goes to shit on their "side".

Deflection is one of the primary, maybe THE primary, dishonest tactic of both ends. Denial of that is silly.
.

I get that you have this balanced, fair mentality about the irrationality of both ends of the spectrum, but you are mistaken. Yes, irrationality and stupidity is present on the left, but the point is, these qualities are much more common on the right.

If there is an objective way to prove that, I'd love to see it.

Since I know there isn't, I think that's just subjective partisan ideology talking.

There's a flood from both ends, and both ends should clean their own house before pointing the finger.
.

 

[Billy000]

I wish I could say I coined this term. I learned it from John Oliver.

The term refers to Republicans /Rightwingers childish debate strategy when defending a fellow rightie. It’s incredibly common on this forum. Sean Hannity pathetically does the same thing on his show all the time.

So for instance, if someone were to bring up Moore’s assault allegations, people like Hannity will say “well what about Clinton? What about his history with sexual misconduct?!”

Now, this isn’t to say we shouldn’t put a spotlight on some questionable details about Clinton’s association with misconduct from the past, but it needs to be in a separate conversation if the conversation was originally about Moore. Of course what’s mostly pathetic about this example is that cons will say they are convinced Clinton is a sexual predator but will pretend Moore is completely innocent. It’s ridiculous.

This childish tactic is also relevant to Trump. Anytime Trump is on the defensive, we hear “well what about Hillary/Obama Derp, Derp, Derp!”

Can’t RWs have an honest conversation about something?

You don't really think that deflection is unique to the Right, do you?

Holy crap, you've gotta be kidding me.

Watch, after the next jihadist atrocity, somebody here says something similar to ""what about the Crusades?"

Why are partisans on both ends so blind to the stuff they do, that they blame the other for? Fer fuck's sake.
.

I would agree that liberals are in denial about Islam, but I don’t ever hear that on this forum. Usually when they defend Muslims, they don’t deny the extremism, they just say all religions have the same amount. This is something I disagree with, however.

The Left does the same spin/deflect/attack approach after every jihadist atrocity. "What about".

That's just one example. Partisans on both ends do this constantly when something goes to shit on their "side".

Deflection is one of the primary, maybe THE primary, dishonest tactic of both ends. Denial of that is silly.
.

I get that you have this balanced, fair mentality about the irrationality of both ends of the spectrum, but you are mistaken. Yes, irrationality and stupidity is present on the left, but the point is, these qualities are much more common on the right.

If there is an objective way to prove that, I'd love to see it.

Since I know there isn't, I think that's just subjective partisan ideology talking.

There's a flood from both ends, and both ends should clean their own house before pointing the finger.
.

Your claim is no less subjective than mine. I just know I’m right.

 

[Mac1958]

You don't really think that deflection is unique to the Right, do you?

Holy crap, you've gotta be kidding me.

Watch, after the next jihadist atrocity, somebody here says something similar to ""what about the Crusades?"

Why are partisans on both ends so blind to the stuff they do, that they blame the other for? Fer fuck's sake.
.

I would agree that liberals are in denial about Islam, but I don’t ever hear that on this forum. Usually when they defend Muslims, they don’t deny the extremism, they just say all religions have the same amount. This is something I disagree with, however.

The Left does the same spin/deflect/attack approach after every jihadist atrocity. "What about".

That's just one example. Partisans on both ends do this constantly when something goes to shit on their "side".

Deflection is one of the primary, maybe THE primary, dishonest tactic of both ends. Denial of that is silly.
.

I get that you have this balanced, fair mentality about the irrationality of both ends of the spectrum, but you are mistaken. Yes, irrationality and stupidity is present on the left, but the point is, these qualities are much more common on the right.

If there is an objective way to prove that, I'd love to see it.

Since I know there isn't, I think that's just subjective partisan ideology talking.

There's a flood from both ends, and both ends should clean their own house before pointing the finger.
.

Your claim is no less subjective than mine. I just know I’m right.

Okay, sure.
.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

Looks like Roy Moore just lost Sean Hannity.

Hannity Gives Roy Moore 24 Hours To Clean Up His Story Or Drop Out

I guess Sean Hannity is now officially owned by k-cups and Volvos.

Well, when you are asked how many teenage girls you dated in your 30's, the answer should "none". Shit, when I was in my 40's, my best fried's daughter's friend hit on me at a party. Ewewew...

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

What on Earth would a 30+ yo man have in common with a teenage girl?

 

[Norman]

I wish I could say I coined this term. I learned it from John Oliver.

The term refers to Republicans /Rightwingers childish debate strategy when defending a fellow rightie. It’s incredibly common on this forum. Sean Hannity pathetically does the same thing on his show all the time.

So for instance, if someone were to bring up Moore’s assault allegations, people like Hannity will say “well what about Clinton? What about his history with sexual misconduct?!”

Now, this isn’t to say we shouldn’t put a spotlight on some questionable details about Clinton’s association with misconduct from the past, but it needs to be in a separate conversation if the conversation was originally about Moore. Of course what’s mostly pathetic about this example is that cons will say they are convinced Clinton is a sexual predator but will pretend Moore is completely innocent. It’s ridiculous.

This childish tactic is also relevant to Trump. Anytime Trump is on the defensive, we hear “well what about Hillary/Obama Derp, Derp, Derp!”

Can’t RWs have an honest conversation about something?

It's a fine tactic. The far left is completely quite when they abuse women, other than the few screams maybe. Yet when a Republican is accused without any evidence, they are outraged.

Clinton, Weiner, Weinstein... I better not start making this list as I won't be able to get to the end for a good while.

 

[Billy000]

I wish I could say I coined this term. I learned it from John Oliver.

The term refers to Republicans /Rightwingers childish debate strategy when defending a fellow rightie. It’s incredibly common on this forum. Sean Hannity pathetically does the same thing on his show all the time.

So for instance, if someone were to bring up Moore’s assault allegations, people like Hannity will say “well what about Clinton? What about his history with sexual misconduct?!”

Now, this isn’t to say we shouldn’t put a spotlight on some questionable details about Clinton’s association with misconduct from the past, but it needs to be in a separate conversation if the conversation was originally about Moore. Of course what’s mostly pathetic about this example is that cons will say they are convinced Clinton is a sexual predator but will pretend Moore is completely innocent. It’s ridiculous.

This childish tactic is also relevant to Trump. Anytime Trump is on the defensive, we hear “well what about Hillary/Obama Derp, Derp, Derp!”

Can’t RWs have an honest conversation about something?

It's a fine tactic. The far left is completely quite when they abuse women, other than the few screams maybe. Yet when a Republican is accused without any evidence, they are outraged.

Clinton, Weiner, Weinstein... I better not start making this list as I won't be able to get to the end for a good while.

How about you answer this simple question: why is Clinton guilty but Moore isn’t? You couldn’t answer that question honestly if your life depended on it.

Also, you come across so dumb lumping Weinstein into this. He isn’t a politician. He is a movie producer. You feign outrage simply because he donated to Hillary. Plenty of scumbags have donated to republicans but you of course pretend they don’t exist.

 

[g5000]

I wish I could say I coined this term. I learned it from John Oliver.

The term refers to Republicans /Rightwingers childish debate strategy when defending a fellow rightie. It’s incredibly common on this forum. Sean Hannity pathetically does the same thing on his show all the time.

So for instance, if someone were to bring up Moore’s assault allegations, people like Hannity will say “well what about Clinton? What about his history with sexual misconduct?!”

Now, this isn’t to say we shouldn’t put a spotlight on some questionable details about Clinton’s association with misconduct from the past, but it needs to be in a separate conversation if the conversation was originally about Moore. Of course what’s mostly pathetic about this example is that cons will say they are convinced Clinton is a sexual predator but will pretend Moore is completely innocent. It’s ridiculous.

This childish tactic is also relevant to Trump. Anytime Trump is on the defensive, we hear “well what about Hillary/Obama Derp, Derp, Derp!”

Can’t RWs have an honest conversation about something?

The correct term is Tu Quoque Logical Fallacy.

I've written hundreds of times about the Tu Quoque Brigade on this forum.

Tu quoque - Wikipedia

"B-b-b-b-but Clinton!"

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

I wish I could say I coined this term. I learned it from John Oliver.

The term refers to Republicans /Rightwingers childish debate strategy when defending a fellow rightie. It’s incredibly common on this forum. Sean Hannity pathetically does the same thing on his show all the time.

So for instance, if someone were to bring up Moore’s assault allegations, people like Hannity will say “well what about Clinton? What about his history with sexual misconduct?!”

Now, this isn’t to say we shouldn’t put a spotlight on some questionable details about Clinton’s association with misconduct from the past, but it needs to be in a separate conversation if the conversation was originally about Moore. Of course what’s mostly pathetic about this example is that cons will say they are convinced Clinton is a sexual predator but will pretend Moore is completely innocent. It’s ridiculous.

This childish tactic is also relevant to Trump. Anytime Trump is on the defensive, we hear “well what about Hillary/Obama Derp, Derp, Derp!”

Can’t RWs have an honest conversation about something?

It's a fine tactic. The far left is completely quite when they abuse women, other than the few screams maybe. Yet when a Republican is accused without any evidence, they are outraged.

Clinton, Weiner, Weinstein... I better not start making this list as I won't be able to get to the end for a good while.

How about you answer this simple question: why is Clinton guilty but Moore isn’t? You couldn’t answer that question honestly if your life depended on it.

Also, you come across so dumb lumping Weinstein into this. He isn’t a politician. He is a movie producer. You feign outrage simply because he donated to Hillary. Plenty of scumbags have donated to republicans but you of course pretend they don’t exist.

Clinton isn't guilty of anything other than perjury.

 

[g5000]

And the Clintons. they skate off with their corruptions, lies and crony cheats in the Democrat party

Nothing to see here folks.

Boy, that Two Cookie Brigade sure got here fast, Pa!

They have the quickest reflexes in the West, son.

 

[BluesLegend]

Liberal hypocrisy and double standards should not be pointed out?

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

I wish I could say I coined this term. I learned it from John Oliver.

The term refers to Republicans /Rightwingers childish debate strategy when defending a fellow rightie. It’s incredibly common on this forum. Sean Hannity pathetically does the same thing on his show all the time.

So for instance, if someone were to bring up Moore’s assault allegations, people like Hannity will say “well what about Clinton? What about his history with sexual misconduct?!”

Now, this isn’t to say we shouldn’t put a spotlight on some questionable details about Clinton’s association with misconduct from the past, but it needs to be in a separate conversation if the conversation was originally about Moore. Of course what’s mostly pathetic about this example is that cons will say they are convinced Clinton is a sexual predator but will pretend Moore is completely innocent. It’s ridiculous.

This childish tactic is also relevant to Trump. Anytime Trump is on the defensive, we hear “well what about Hillary/Obama Derp, Derp, Derp!”

Can’t RWs have an honest conversation about something?

The correct term is Tu Quoque Logical Fallacy.

I've written hundreds of times about the Tu Quoque Brigade on this forum.

Tu quoque - Wikipedia

"B-b-b-b-but Clinton!"

Nobody's trying to discredit anybody's argument other than to point out that as of now, Moore isn't guilty of anything... which he isn't.

 

[g5000]

I wish I could say I coined this term. I learned it from John Oliver.

The term refers to Republicans /Rightwingers childish debate strategy when defending a fellow rightie. It’s incredibly common on this forum. Sean Hannity pathetically does the same thing on his show all the time.

So for instance, if someone were to bring up Moore’s assault allegations, people like Hannity will say “well what about Clinton? What about his history with sexual misconduct?!”

Now, this isn’t to say we shouldn’t put a spotlight on some questionable details about Clinton’s association with misconduct from the past, but it needs to be in a separate conversation if the conversation was originally about Moore. Of course what’s mostly pathetic about this example is that cons will say they are convinced Clinton is a sexual predator but will pretend Moore is completely innocent. It’s ridiculous.

This childish tactic is also relevant to Trump. Anytime Trump is on the defensive, we hear “well what about Hillary/Obama Derp, Derp, Derp!”

Can’t RWs have an honest conversation about something?

The correct term is Tu Quoque Logical Fallacy.

I've written hundreds of times about the Tu Quoque Brigade on this forum.

Tu quoque - Wikipedia

"B-b-b-b-but Clinton!"

Nobody's trying to discredit anybody's argument other than to point out that as of now, Moore isn't guilty of anything... which he isn't.

And yet Clinton's name gets brought up.

No matter what topic about Trump or one of the other residents of his swamp, Clinton's name gets brought up. Or Obama's.

It's pathological.

Tu quoque.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

Liberal hypocrisy and double standards should not be pointed out?

Exactly.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

I wish I could say I coined this term. I learned it from John Oliver.

The term refers to Republicans /Rightwingers childish debate strategy when defending a fellow rightie. It’s incredibly common on this forum. Sean Hannity pathetically does the same thing on his show all the time.

So for instance, if someone were to bring up Moore’s assault allegations, people like Hannity will say “well what about Clinton? What about his history with sexual misconduct?!”

Now, this isn’t to say we shouldn’t put a spotlight on some questionable details about Clinton’s association with misconduct from the past, but it needs to be in a separate conversation if the conversation was originally about Moore. Of course what’s mostly pathetic about this example is that cons will say they are convinced Clinton is a sexual predator but will pretend Moore is completely innocent. It’s ridiculous.

This childish tactic is also relevant to Trump. Anytime Trump is on the defensive, we hear “well what about Hillary/Obama Derp, Derp, Derp!”

Can’t RWs have an honest conversation about something?

The correct term is Tu Quoque Logical Fallacy.

I've written hundreds of times about the Tu Quoque Brigade on this forum.

Tu quoque - Wikipedia

"B-b-b-b-but Clinton!"

Nobody's trying to discredit anybody's argument other than to point out that as of now, Moore isn't guilty of anything... which he isn't.

And yet Clinton's name gets brought up.

Tu quoque.

Bullshit.. you don't even know what that means.