The Trump Card...

[Pilgrim]

Sad but true. However, Speaker McCarthy has said, “If for some way when we go through Ethics and he has broken the law, then we will remove him,..." (Source)

"...broken the law" - there's the catch that had served to let both parties off the hook over the years. If Santos was spinning yarns during his campaign (as many other politicians have done), then it would be hard to prove he violated any laws because he didn't lie under oath. The voters of NY3 had their say and the party won't overturn a certified election without evidence of a crime.

Also, removal from Congress is not just up to McCarthy. It takes a two-thirds vote to expel a member if the Ethics committee brings charges, and it's only happened five times in the history of the House. The number of politicians who have lied during their campaigns over the years is incalculable. Let him without sin cast the first stone.

 

[Pilgrim]

If you say so. I say otherwise. Whataboutism is a fallacy, not a valid argument.

Maybe I should have used the term "hypocrisy" instead. Regardless, it leads to the same subject of conversation: Santos, Biden, Schiff, Swalwell, and hundreds of other politicians are liars that got elected to Congress this year, and have been elected in past years without being brought up on ethics charges. Should we review the campaign speeches and interviews to expose the inaccuracies or "lies" of nearly every candidate that ran in 2022?

I don't want to make points by changing the subject to something else. If I say Bob is a bad guy, I don't talk about Steve. I highlight Bob's words, actions and failures to act to make my point.

It's not changing the subject. The actions of candidate A are compared to the same actions of candidate B under similar circumstances.

"It is a version of the tu quoque logical fallacy, but with a big difference. In the latter, a personal failing of the person making the accusation is appealed to, not an apples to apples comparison of events with similar contexts."

'Whataboutism' Is A Nonsense Word That Defends Hypocrisy

When someone accuses you of whataboutism, you can be pretty certain you are right and they can't refute it.

thefederalist.com

 

[ATeam]

Maybe I should have used the term "hypocrisy" instead. Regardless, it leads to the same subject of conversation: Santos, Biden, Schiff, Swalwell, and hundreds of other politicians are liars that got elected to Congress this year, and have been elected in past years without being brought up on ethics charges. Should we review the campaign speeches and interviews to expose the inaccuracies or "lies" of nearly every candidate that ran in 2022?

What about Trump? He is famous for his thousands of lies. Your failure to mention Trump totally invalidates your thesis, does it not?

Just kidding. I'm simply making my same point in a different way. Using whataboutism, I don't have to answer anything you say. I need only change the subject to someone else to get readers interested in that.

In my life, it goes back to my upbringing. My parents told me I had to be in bed by 9pm. But what about the other kids? I'd protest. They don't have to be in bet before 10pm. Just as it did not shift their opinion then, whataboutism does not shift mine now.

Regarding Santos and ethics charges, is that actually happening? My reading of the news is that he's at risk for being expelled from the House, not for ethical breaches, but for crimes he may be come to be charged with as the investigations proceed.

It does seem that his ethical breaches have cast him in a unique light in the House, even among his fellow Republicans. I'm seeing numerous reports about him being the odd man out; and no reports to the contrary.

It's not changing the subject. The actions of candidate A are compared to the same actions of candidate B under similar circumstances.

If you want to argue that hypocrisy exists in politics, I'll agree. If you want to argue that the same standards of law and ethics should be applied to all, I'll agree with that too.

 

[ATeam]

'Whataboutism' Is A Nonsense Word That Defends Hypocrisy

When someone accuses you of whataboutism, you can be pretty certain you are right and they can't refute it.

thefederalist.com

This article begins with "When someone accuses you of whataboutism, you can be pretty certain you are right and they can’t refute it."

My response is, if you are engaging in whataboutism, I can be pretty certain you are incapable of or you are not interested in advancing a logical argument that would hold up in court or under the rules of logic.

In political debate, it is rare to find such a discussion. You see it in court. You see it in debating clubs. You see it in college philosophy classes. But you rarely see it in the political realm. In politics, people rarely take the time to agree what the actual topic is. Without that, it's impossible to debate people's points on their merits.

 

[muttly]

If parents tell a kid that he has to be in bed at 9pm, but the older kids in the family can stay up later. The “whataboutism” wouldn’t work because the kids are older and can handle less sleep.(different standard applies ) But if the kid had a twin brother and the parents let him stay up later, that could be a legitimate whataboutism. ( Why the different standard and favoritism toward the other twin?)

 

[ATeam]

If parents tell a kid that he has to be in bed at 9pm, but the older kids in the family can stay up later. The “whataboutism” wouldn’t work because the kids are older and can handle less sleep.(different standard applies ) But if the kid had a twin brother and the parents let him stay up later, that could be a legitimate whataboutism. ( Why the different standard and favoritism toward the other twin?)

In my case, it was the neighbor kids my age I was talking about. But to use your example, the whataboutism is illegitimate. It is not about the other twin. It's about the parents. It's not about the other twin. It's about whatever standard the parents are using and its fair or unfair application.

But lets bring this back to politics. Trump, Biden and Pence have all had classified documents (or, if you prefer, documents having classified markings) found in their homes. I see no reason to use whataboutism in any of these cases. I see very good reason to have all of them investigated and charged as the law and facts dictate. The circumstances of the cases differ so the charges, if any, will differ. Whataboutism has NOTHING to do with it.

 

[muttly]

In my case, it was the neighbor kids my age I was talking about. But to use your example, the whataboutism is illegitimate. It is not about the other twin. It's about the parents. It's not about the other twin. It's about whatever standard the parents are using and its fair or unfair application.

But lets bring this back to politics. Trump, Biden and Pence have all had classified documents (or, if you prefer, documents having classified markings) found in their homes. I see no reason to use whataboutism in any of these cases. I see very good reason to have all of them investigated and charged as the law and facts dictate. The circumstances of the cases differ so the charges, if any, will differ. Whataboutism has NOTHING to do with it.

It being the neighbor’s kids that can stay up later makes your 9 pm rule irrelevant to whataboutism. Different families have different rules. No double standard applies because different parents and different home upbringings. We are talking about rules and standards applied evenly within the House of Representatives. (Under ONE house)

 

[Pilgrim]

But lets bring this back to politics. Trump, Biden and Pence have all had classified documents (or, if you prefer, documents having classified markings) found in their homes. I see no reason to use whataboutism in any of these cases. I see very good reason to have all of them investigated and charged as the law and facts dictate. The circumstances of the cases differ so the charges, if any, will differ. Whataboutism has NOTHING to do with it.

This is spot on, but the investigations should be fair and objective. Right now I'm not sure this DOJ is able or willing to make that happen. Also, the National Archives librarians need to have a better system of keeping track of these documents.

 

[ATeam]

It being the neighbor’s kids that can stay up later makes your 9 pm rule irrelevant to whataboutism. Different families have different rules. No double standard applies because different parents and different home upbringings. We are talking about rules and standards applied evenly within the House of Representatives. (Under ONE house)

Expulsions, reprimands and censures in the US House are rare. Here's the list.

 

[danthewolf00]

And someone filed a ethic complaint against Adam schiff.......

 

[Turtle]

Whataboutism is indeed a logical fallacy so it's usually a very weak argument in debate. However, in some contexts, politics often being one of them, whataboutism can be a useful tool to expose contradictions, double standards, and hypocrisy.

Unfortunately in politics, accurately nailing liberals to the wall on hypocrisy is an equally weak argument in political debate, because liberals simply don't care if they're hypocritical. Couldn't care less. The liberal standard operating procedures stem directly from the philosophy of "by any means necessary." While conservatives, especially those coming from the religious right, have a moral obligation against hypocrisy, so it cuts deeper and does more damage when they're called on it. Liberals have no such moral obligation to avoid hypocrisy.

It's what allows liberals to display the breathtakimg hypocrisy of "do as I say, not as I do" on routine display during the pandemic regarding mask mandates, dining out, indoor gatherings, and travel. It's what allows liberal to call for Trump's head on a pike for having classified material stored in a secure location for months while making excuses for Biden having classified documents moved about and stored in unsecured locations for years.

It's why I just shake my head when conservatives call out the hypocrisy of the left, because it's a fruitless endeavor.

 

[ATeam]

Whataboutism is indeed a logical fallacy so it's usually a very weak argument in debate. However, in some contexts, politics often being one of them, whataboutism can be a useful tool to expose contradictions, double standards, and hypocrisy.

Then let's help those who engage in whataboutism get to the real point they are trying to make. Instead of saying, "What about Hillary's emails?" when someone mentions the Mar-a-Lago search, say, "My main concern is the fairness with which the government applies the law. I love Trump and I think he is being singled out and unfairly treated." Then we can talk not about Hillary in a way that gets us nowhere but about application of the law and how the country might be better if it is fairly applied. Instead of framing things in a way that fans the flames of anger, frame the concern in terms of what's best for the country.

Unfortunately in politics, accurately nailing liberals to the wall on hypocrisy is an equally weak argument in political debate, because liberals simply don't care if they're hypocritical. Couldn't care less. The liberal standard operating procedures stem directly from the philosophy of "by any means necessary." While conservatives, especially those coming from the religious right, have a moral obligation against hypocrisy, so it cuts deeper and does more damage when they're called on it. Liberals have no such moral obligation to avoid hypocrisy.

I'm not so sure about that. It seems to me that ample cases can be shown where Republican and Democratic politicians are equally hypocritical or inappropriate. Here's a list of 9 Members of Congress who were forced out for sex or harassment reasons. You can see the party distribution is roughly equal.

Even before Democrats and Republicans existed, that is easily seen. Our Founding Fathers said all men are created equal but some they owned slaves. Is that not hypocritical?

It's why I just shake my head when conservatives call out the hypocrisy of the left, because it's a fruitless endeavor.

Equally so on the other side, it seems to me.

Sometimes, the hypocrisy charge gains traction with the voters and thereby becomes effective.

Finally, I'd much rather debate the strength and weaknesses of a hypocrisy charge than listen to whataboutism. With hypocricy, it's here's the standard and here's the act. Given that, is the person in question being hypocritical, and if so, what should be the consequences be? Instead of changing the subject to someone else, you can get to the real point that actually matters.

 

[ATeam]

New Activity RE Stormy Daniels, the Manhattan DA and More

It is an unsourced report ("according to a person familiar with the matter") but there is objectively verifiable activity that suggests the report has something to it. The New York Times headline is "Manhattan Prosecutors Begin Presenting Trump Case to Grand Jury."

It seems the Stormy Daniels hush money case has been revived by the Manhattan DA. Witness David Pecker and his attorney were seen at the office where the grand jury is sitting. The grand jury was recently empanneled.

Also of interest is the new book that will be released next week. Written by Mark Pomerantz, one of the two prosecutors who resigned in protest when the Manhattan DA seemingly paused or halted the hush money case, the book is said to be of great concern to the Manhattan DA (Bragg) because it threatens to undermine his case.

Since those two prosecutors resigned in protest, we've heard little from them. I'm looking forward to learning what one of them finally has to say.

There are more questions than answers at this point, but it seems like we will learn a lot next week as more news breaks and this book comes out.

 

[ATeam]

Santos recused himself from committees. That aught to pacify the Lefty loosies.

My reply is in the "What's Going on in the US House of Representatives" thread where it is more on-topic. This is a Trump thread.

 

[Turtle]

Then let's help those who engage in whataboutism get to the real point they are trying to make. Instead of saying, "What about Hillary's emails?" when someone mentions the Mar-a-Lago search, say,

The "real point" they're trying to make is indeed calling out hypocrisy. The point is, if you dismissed the rather serious security breach of Hillary's emails as 'no big deal, nothing to see here,' them you have zero credibility when you throw a full-on, 3 year old, grocery store candy aisle temper tantrum over Trump's documents.

I'm not so sure about that. It seems to me that ample cases can be shown where Republican and Democratic politicians are equally hypocritical or inappropriate. Here's a list of 9 Members of Congress who were forced out for sex or harassment reasons. You can see the party distribution is roughly equal

Both sides are guilty of hypocrisy, no question about it. But equally? No, not even close. I've observed this for decades to ascertain the reasons why, and listed the two most salient reasons for the differences. Giving an anecdotal example of a roughly even split for one frame of reference is hardly convincing for an overall even split on hypocrisy.

How many Republican governors and Mayors were caught without masks after issuing mask mandates? The Left drones and in about tolerance and inclusion while not tolerating and excluding those they don't agree with, even to the point of physical attacks and attempting to silence dissent. You don't see the right doing that. (generally speaking, of course, I'm not talking in 100% adsolutes here.)

Even before Democrats and Republicans existed, that is easily seen. Our Founding Fanny even close. thers said all men are created equal but some they owned slaves. Is that not hypocritical?

Not hypocrisy. That was a different time when slaves were considered property rather than people. The first draft of the Declaration of Independence Thomas Jefferson, famous slave owner, freed the slaves, but it had to be removed in later drafts in order to get more than about 5 people to sign it. It was decided that freeing slaves and granting them personhood would have to wait for a later date and time.

 

[ATeam]

If the Republican Party Does Not Nominate Trump, Might He Dump Them to Run as a Third-party Candidate?

With DeSantis coming on strong and Trump's legal problems getting worse, it is not a foregone conclusion that Trump will win the Republican nomination for president in 2024. That raises the question; might Trump run as a third-party candidate?

I stumbled upon this comment today that got me thinking about that.

"I don’t know that Trump would run a third-party campaign if he lost the Republican nomination. But I do know that if Trump were to lose the Republican nominating contest, he could bring in a lot of money by running a third-party campaign.

"And if the question is: “Trump could make a lot of money by doing X; will he do X?”

"Well, then the answer is usually: Yes." (Source)

 

[ATeam]

Trump Has His First Official Opponent

Nikki Haley will formally announce soon. More are likely to follow. That may actually be good news for Trump. In his weakened state, a small field makes him easier to beat. But a crowded field splits the vote more ways, making it easier for Trump to win the nomination with a smaller percentage of the total.

Either way, so much for the idea that entering the race first and early as Trump did will clear the field. It ain't gonna happen that others will stand down simply because Trump stepped up. That might have been true once upon a time but it is true no more.

Nikki Haley, once Trump's UN ambassador, to take him on in 2024

The move could set the stage for a more combative phase of the campaign, potentially putting her in the sights of the former U.S. president.

www.reuters.com

 

[muttly]

Haley has little if any support among MAGA voters.

 

[Pilgrim]

Haley has little, if any support among ANY voters. She's going for the VP spot.

 

[muttly]

Kind of like a Kamala type deal she hopes.