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

[g5000]

REPORT: Donald Trump shot a man on Fifth Avenue near the-

TARD: B-B-B-B-B- B CLINTON!!!!

 

[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.

Tu quoque.

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

I have hundreds of examples. You tards provide them every single day.

See post 75 for starters.

Idiot.

 

[g5000]

It's the argument of a five year old.

"B-b-b-b-b-but Billy did it, too!"

It's the argument of an extremely submissive personality. "I'm okay with my guy being a sleazeball since the other guy was a sleazeball. He can lie and spit on me all he likes and I will love every second of it."

 

[Camp]

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.

He is guilty of making a lot of people angry and becoming the poster boy for child molesters.

 

[bendog]

It's the argument of a five year old.

"B-b-b-b-b-but Billy did it, too!"

It's the argument of an extremely submissive personality. "I'm okay with my guy being a sleazeball since the other guy was a sleazeball. He can lie and spit on me all he likes and I will like it."

It's an attempt to run against "crooked Hillary," but since Trump won, and he's getting closer and closer to being tied to Putin and the election interference ... it's now "investigate Uraniumgate."

 

[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.

He is guilty of making a lot of people angry and becoming the poster boy for child molesters.

Oh, so you have evidence he molested children?

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

It's the argument of a five year old.

"B-b-b-b-b-but Billy did it, too!"

It's the argument of an extremely submissive personality. "I'm okay with my guy being a sleazeball since the other guy was a sleazeball. He can lie and spit on me all he likes and I will like it."

It's an attempt to run against "crooked Hillary," but since Trump won, and he's getting closer and closer to being tied to Putin and the election interference ... it's now "investigate Uraniumgate."

That's what people said 9 months ago.

 

[bendog]

It's the argument of a five year old.

"B-b-b-b-b-but Billy did it, too!"

It's the argument of an extremely submissive personality. "I'm okay with my guy being a sleazeball since the other guy was a sleazeball. He can lie and spit on me all he likes and I will like it."

It's an attempt to run against "crooked Hillary," but since Trump won, and he's getting closer and closer to being tied to Putin and the election interference ... it's now "investigate Uraniumgate."

That's what people said 9 months ago.

And it worked nine months ago.

 

[Camp]

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.

He is guilty of making a lot of people angry and becoming the poster boy for child molesters.

Oh, so you have evidence he molested children?

The public has decided enough evidence has been presented. Victim comments are evidence.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

It's the argument of a five year old.

"B-b-b-b-b-but Billy did it, too!"

It's the argument of an extremely submissive personality. "I'm okay with my guy being a sleazeball since the other guy was a sleazeball. He can lie and spit on me all he likes and I will love every second of it."

Dude, I'm not arguing Moore's guilt or innocence based on the fact that these moonbats here that trashed the Clinton accusers as trailer park trash, automatically assume these women are correct. I'm just pointing out hypocrisy. We don't know if Moore did these things, and we never will, the allegations are nearly 4 decades old.

Do try and keep up.

 

[g5000]

It's the argument of a five year old.

"B-b-b-b-b-but Billy did it, too!"

It's the argument of an extremely submissive personality. "I'm okay with my guy being a sleazeball since the other guy was a sleazeball. He can lie and spit on me all he likes and I will like it."

It's an attempt to run against "crooked Hillary," but since Trump won, and he's getting closer and closer to being tied to Putin and the election interference ... it's now "investigate Uraniumgate."

Ah. The close partner of the Tu Quoque Fallacy is the Red Herring.

This forum has an abundance of those nearly every day, too.

 

[g5000]

It's the argument of a five year old.

"B-b-b-b-b-but Billy did it, too!"

It's the argument of an extremely submissive personality. "I'm okay with my guy being a sleazeball since the other guy was a sleazeball. He can lie and spit on me all he likes and I will love every second of it."

Dude, I'm not arguing Moore's guilt or innocence based on the fact that these moonbats here that trashed the Clinton accusers as trailer park trash, automatically assume these women are correct. I'm just pointing out hypocrisy. We don't know if Moore did these things, and we never will, the allegations are nearly 4 decades old.

Do try and keep up.

Clinton's guilt was assumed based on mere accusations, too. So your tu quoque bullshit snaps right back in your face.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

And knock it off wit the Tu Quoque Fallacy nonsense, it doesn't make you look all that bright. Here is a Tu Quoque Fallacy:

1. Person A makes claim X.
2. Person B asserts that A's actions or past claims are inconsistent with the truth of claim X.
3. Therefore X is false.

I don't see anyone doing this, I know I'm not.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

It's the argument of a five year old.

"B-b-b-b-b-but Billy did it, too!"

It's the argument of an extremely submissive personality. "I'm okay with my guy being a sleazeball since the other guy was a sleazeball. He can lie and spit on me all he likes and I will love every second of it."

Dude, I'm not arguing Moore's guilt or innocence based on the fact that these moonbats here that trashed the Clinton accusers as trailer park trash, automatically assume these women are correct. I'm just pointing out hypocrisy. We don't know if Moore did these things, and we never will, the allegations are nearly 4 decades old.

Do try and keep up.

Clinton's guilt was assumed based on mere accusations, too. So your tu quoque bullshit snaps right back in your face.

And so is Moore's. Stop being such a cementhead.

 

[g5000]

It's the argument of a five year old.

"B-b-b-b-b-but Billy did it, too!"

It's the argument of an extremely submissive personality. "I'm okay with my guy being a sleazeball since the other guy was a sleazeball. He can lie and spit on me all he likes and I will love every second of it."

Dude, I'm not arguing Moore's guilt or innocence based on the fact that these moonbats here that trashed the Clinton accusers as trailer park trash, automatically assume these women are correct. I'm just pointing out hypocrisy. We don't know if Moore did these things, and we never will, the allegations are nearly 4 decades old.

Do try and keep up.

Clinton's guilt was assumed based on mere accusations, too. So your tu quoque bullshit snaps right back in your face.

And so is Moore's. Stop being such a cementhead.

This tu quoque bullshit is not unique to the Roy Moore thing. LIke I said, it is a daily thing. For many years now.

Not a single day goes by without a tard tossing one out. Within two minutes. Every single day.

See post 75.

 

[g5000]

It's a submissive personality which uses the "B-b-b-b-but Clinton" argument.

"The other guy raped us, so my guy can rape us in the ass all day every day and I will love every minute of it."

Sad.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

It's the argument of a five year old.

"B-b-b-b-b-but Billy did it, too!"

It's the argument of an extremely submissive personality. "I'm okay with my guy being a sleazeball since the other guy was a sleazeball. He can lie and spit on me all he likes and I will love every second of it."

Dude, I'm not arguing Moore's guilt or innocence based on the fact that these moonbats here that trashed the Clinton accusers as trailer park trash, automatically assume these women are correct. I'm just pointing out hypocrisy. We don't know if Moore did these things, and we never will, the allegations are nearly 4 decades old.

Do try and keep up.

Clinton's guilt was assumed based on mere accusations, too. So your tu quoque bullshit snaps right back in your face.

And so is Moore's. Stop being such a cementhead.

This tu quoque bullshit is not unique to the Roy Moore thing. LIke I said, it is a daily thing. For many years now.

Not a single day goes by without a tard tossing one out. Within two minutes. Every single day.

See post 75.

Jesus you're either dense or abjectly dishonest.

 

[g5000]

It's the argument of a five year old.

"B-b-b-b-b-but Billy did it, too!"

It's the argument of an extremely submissive personality. "I'm okay with my guy being a sleazeball since the other guy was a sleazeball. He can lie and spit on me all he likes and I will love every second of it."

Dude, I'm not arguing Moore's guilt or innocence based on the fact that these moonbats here that trashed the Clinton accusers as trailer park trash, automatically assume these women are correct. I'm just pointing out hypocrisy. We don't know if Moore did these things, and we never will, the allegations are nearly 4 decades old.

Do try and keep up.

Clinton's guilt was assumed based on mere accusations, too. So your tu quoque bullshit snaps right back in your face.

And so is Moore's. Stop being such a cementhead.

This tu quoque bullshit is not unique to the Roy Moore thing. LIke I said, it is a daily thing. For many years now.

Not a single day goes by without a tard tossing one out. Within two minutes. Every single day.

See post 75.

Jesus you're either dense or abjectly dishonest.

Nope.

The tu quoque response is a way for a pathologically submissive personality to avoid condemning heinous acts committed by their team.

It's not just willful blindness. It is permission.

 

[Siete]

It's a submissive personality which uses the "B-b-b-b-but Clinton" argument.

"The other guy raped us, so my guy can rape us in the ass all day every day and I will love every minute of it."

Sad.

submissive ?

uh, ya misspelled fuckingmoron.

 

[bendog]

Well, the logical problem is that even assuming the partisan gop attack on Hillary and Uraniumgate turns up something, despite years of investigation showing not much of anything beyond her usual accepting Foundation Cash for access to the SoS (bad enough for me btw) that has no factual connection to the bipartisan investigation, led by Mueller a republican btw, into Russian interference in the 16 election that inexorably grinds closer and closer to Trump personally.