EPTUS Politics Mega-thread - Page 9459
| Forum Index > Closed |
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please. In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. | ||
|
PhoenixVoid
Canada32751 Posts
| ||
|
LegalLord
United States13779 Posts
| ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
On December 08 2017 01:50 Danglars wrote: I'm just saying the reasons why I asked, because several posters here do that schtick so I can't immediately assume x is why he thought it was evil and he accepted the facts/disputed the facts. Yes, but discussions in this thread get pretty heated and hyperbolic, so lets cut everyone here some slack. The same cannot be said for Shapiro’s essay. We should hold professionals like him to a higher standard than the shit posting that happens in this thread during a debate on racism. Evil might be a strong word to describe the essay, but it’s content and argument is gross. It completely ignores crimes by Israel and that state’s ongoing acts of aggression against an increasingly powerless people. To be honest, it reminds me of essays and articles I read justifying evicting Native Americans from their land during the trail of tears. | ||
|
Mohdoo
United States15743 Posts
Sign me up! Good riddance!! | ||
|
Jockmcplop
United Kingdom9950 Posts
If you were to rank Muslim communities in terms of how liberal they are, Palestinians would be way ahead of Saudis, Syrians and most other populations in mulslim countries. Starting from the idea that he is totally factually wrong about everything he is saying is a great way to approach all Shapiro's content. | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
Further evidence that Benny is just a partisan shill. Frankien was hugged by his colleagues and thanked for his hard work. But Benny can't let th specter of respect and professionalism taint his narrative about the Democrats. It will hurt his bottom line. | ||
KwarK
United States44194 Posts
He's claiming that they're just doing it so they have the moral high ground. Well, so what? We're agreed that they have the moral high ground. That's a good thing, it's what they were trying to achieve. That's like saying that someone only goes to work so they can earn a living. No shit, that's the fucking point. | ||
|
Jockmcplop
United Kingdom9950 Posts
On December 08 2017 02:42 KwarK wrote: I don't even see why that's a valid line of attack. He's claiming that they're just doing it so they have the moral high ground. Well, so what? We're agreed that they have the moral high ground. That's a good thing, it's what they were trying to achieve. That's like saying that someone only goes to work so they can earn a living. No shit, that's the fucking point. Moral high ground is a phrase used by people on the moral low ground. | ||
|
Introvert
United States5001 Posts
On December 08 2017 02:31 Plansix wrote: https://twitter.com/benshapiro/status/938451446080536576 Further evidence that Benny is just a partisan shill. Frankien was hugged by his colleagues and thanked for his hard work. But Benny can't let th specter of respect and professionalism taint his narrative about the Democrats. It will hurt his bottom line. Did you even read the replies to that tweet? Meanwhile, it is hilarious that people think the Democrats are trying to force him to resign due to principle. So much cynicism, so little of it directed at the Democrat party. | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
On December 08 2017 02:45 Introvert wrote: Did you even read the replies to that tweet? Meanwhile, it is hilarious that people think the Democrats are trying to force him to resign due to principle. So much cynicism, so little of it directed at the Democrat party. Case and point. The same person who said Jeff Flake was wrong for not wanting to give a hate monger like Roy Moore power, even if it meant supporting a Democrat. | ||
|
Mohdoo
United States15743 Posts
On December 08 2017 02:42 KwarK wrote: I don't even see why that's a valid line of attack. He's claiming that they're just doing it so they have the moral high ground. Well, so what? We're agreed that they have the moral high ground. That's a good thing, it's what they were trying to achieve. That's like saying that someone only goes to work so they can earn a living. No shit, that's the fucking point. "Look at these democrat cucks. They are only doing this to be ethical people. cucks." | ||
|
KwarK
United States44194 Posts
On December 08 2017 02:45 Introvert wrote: Did you even read the replies to that tweet? Meanwhile, it is hilarious that people think the Democrats are trying to force him to resign due to principle. So much cynicism, so little of it directed at the Democrat party. Let's say we fully accept the premise that Franken is being forced to resign because it'll give the Democrats the appearance of a party that doesn't tolerate that shit, in contrast with the Republicans. How exactly does that help the fact that you're running a child molester for Senate? The issue with whataboutism has always been that it doesn't change the issue with your guy, it just deflects. If your response to "what's the deal with your funding and supporting a child molester for Senate?" is "yeah, but what about Al Franken?", you're still funding a child molester, you'd just rather talk about Franken. Now we're at next level, "sure, but they only got rid of Franken as a cheap trick to try to make us look bad for funding a child molester". Even if we accept that fully and judge this as a completely cynical ploy, you're still funding a child molester for Senate. You haven't done anything to address the issue, you're just coming up with increasingly more desperate ways to deflect. | ||
|
IyMoon
United States1249 Posts
On December 08 2017 02:47 Plansix wrote: You need to see it like two sports teams. No one ever does anything for moral or just reasons, it is all part of getting an edge over the other team. Democrats only did this because they want an edge over the GOP, not because its the right course of action. But they still ended up doing the right thing.... so it still seems like a win | ||
|
Introvert
United States5001 Posts
They obviously get some credit, but not too much. Hilarious. | ||
|
Introvert
United States5001 Posts
On December 08 2017 02:51 KwarK wrote: Let's say we fully accept the premise that Franken is being forced to resign because it'll give the Democrats the appearance of a party that doesn't tolerate that shit, in contrast with the Republicans. How exactly does that help the fact that you're running a child molester for Senate? The issue with whataboutism has always been that it doesn't change the issue with your guy, it just deflects. If your response to "what's the deal with your funding and supporting a child molester for Senate?" is "yeah, but what about Al Franken?", you're still funding a child molester, you'd just rather talk about Franken. Now we're at next level, "sure, but they only got rid of Franken as a cheap trick to try to make us look bad for funding a child molester". Even if we accept that fully and judge this as a completely cynical ploy, you're still funding a child molester for Senate. You haven't done anything to address the issue, you're just coming up with increasingly more desperate ways to deflect. I have engaged in zero whataboutism, try again. | ||
|
KwarK
United States44194 Posts
On December 08 2017 02:54 Introvert wrote: I have engaged in zero whataboutism, try again. but what about Gillibrand out compaigning with Bill Clinton | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
On December 08 2017 02:54 Introvert wrote: I have engaged in zero whataboutism, try again. Your last post is a sloppy attempt to bring up Bill Clinton, rather than accept that your party supports a child molester. I don’t think you know what whataboutism means. Edit: LoL, kwark with the more direct route. | ||
|
mozoku
United States708 Posts
On December 08 2017 02:52 Introvert wrote: Gillibrand was out compaigning with Bill Clinton not that long ago. Then a few weeks ago they were going have an ethics committee look at it (where nothing ever happens). but now that polls show Moore winning again and the magical number of 7 accusers was reached, now we must stand strong! They obviously get some credit, but not too much. Hilarious. I don't really agree that they get any credit. If you do something for political reasons that happens to be ethical, that's not at all the same as being ethical. Granted, that's certainly better than what the GOP's doing, but I don't look at see a choice between a conman and a murder and think to myself "Man, thank God we have this conman so we don't have to pick the murder. The conman is so ethical by comparison!" EDIT: If you think this is whataboutism then your lack of argumentation skills is beyond fixing. | ||
|
Introvert
United States5001 Posts
And where is the supposed whatabsolutism in the post you are actually quoting? You don't get to reverse engineer it. Meanwhile, that's not "whataboutism." I'm not using that fact to defend Moore or the GOP. I am not saying "what about." My focus here is clearly on the Democrats, who a little while after a 7th woman came forward, all decide within the span of 15 minutes that Franken had to go. But maybe this thread IS that naive, they think that Bob Corker or Jeff Flake are standing on principle. I want to believe!! | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
On December 08 2017 03:01 mozoku wrote: I don't really agree that they get any credit. If you do something for political reasons that happens to be ethical, that's not at all the same as being ethical. Granted, that's certainly better than what the GOP's doing, but I don't look at see a choice between a conman and a murder and think to myself "Man, thank God we have this conman so we don't have to pick the murder. The conman is so ethical by comparison!" This means that there can be no ethics in politics, because doing the right thing might be seen as a positive and therefore politically advantageous. I can’t tell if you are really cynical or just didn’t think that one through to the end. | ||
| ||
