Republican Hypocracies

[Squatch347]

I suppose so, if that's what your source shows. But democrats hate the military, right? Why would they ever speak about it?

That is certainly an odd interpretation. Is that really your explanation of President Obama's actions? That he "hates the military?"

"So he wasn’t “left behind.”" https://www.redstate.com/streiff/201...riefing-niger/Who would he be responding to here? Do I have to do all of your sources? Because that's two.

Again, that quote doesn't support your claim. That was the Red State author clearing up one particular misconception while maintaining other questions. If you are going to use that quote, you need to show that they wouldn't have made that clarification if President Trump were a Democrat. Do you have evidence that they wouldn't have made that clarification?

---

The above notwithstanding, your initial claim that conservative media weren't covering this has been rebutted, right?

[CowboyX]

That is certainly an odd interpretation. Is that really your explanation of President Obama's actions? That he "hates the military?"




Again, that quote doesn't support your claim. That was the Red State author clearing up one particular misconception while maintaining other questions. If you are going to use that quote, you need to show that they wouldn't have made that clarification if President Trump were a Democrat. Do you have evidence that they wouldn't have made that clarification?

---

The above notwithstanding, your initial claim that conservative media weren't covering this has been rebutted, right?

No, I already showed how Alex Jones wasn't covering it.

---------- Post added at 03:20 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:20 PM ----------

That is certainly an odd interpretation. Is that really your explanation of President Obama's actions? That he "hates the military?"

I don't know which actions you're talking about, you'll have to support.

---------- Post added at 03:27 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:20 PM ----------

You'd have to believe that if Hillary were president and indictments were coming down against her associates that republican outlets would be reacting differently than this:

http://www.npr.org/2017/10/31/561070...er-indictments

Instead they are carrying water for the president and echoing his deflection strategy. They'd do that for Hillary? Not. (Unless you can support that they would. Please do so. {challenge thingy})

[Squatch347]

No, I already showed how Alex Jones wasn't covering it.

Then can you support that Alex Jones by himself constitutes "right wing corporate media."

I don't know which actions you're talking about, you'll have to support.

I don't see how this could possibly be a true statement, we talked about them 3 posts ago in post 279 . In that post I used your reasoning to ask about the lack of "presidentical acknowledgement" of the members of DevGru that died in a helicopter crash.

Your toungue in cheek response (I'm assuming) was that he hates the military. I'm asking if that is your actual defense of this action or if there could be another explanation?

You'd have to believe that if Hillary were president and indictments were coming down against her associates that republican outlets would be reacting differently than this

This seems to be an appeal to belief fallacy. I get that you feel things would be different, but what I'm asking you to do is prove that they would be different. Offer actual support of your claim rather than just breathlessly appealing to a double standard in your mind.

(Unless you can support that they would. Please do so. {challenge thingy})

It is inappropriate to challenge people to support a claim that they have not made, that can constitute trolling here, please observe a bit more caution in the future.

[CowboyX]

Then can you support that Alex Jones by himself constitutes "right wing corporate media."

Of course he does, he certainly isn't on the left.

---------- Post added at 11:41 AM ---------- Previous post was at 11:38 AM ----------

I don't see how this could possibly be a true statement, we talked about them 3 posts ago in post 279 . In that post I used your reasoning to ask about the lack of "presidentical acknowledgement" of the members of DevGru that died in a helicopter crash.

Was there?

---------- Post added at 11:45 AM ---------- Previous post was at 11:41 AM ----------

This seems to be an appeal to belief fallacy. I get that you feel things would be different, but what I'm asking you to do is prove that they would be different. Offer actual support of your claim rather than just breathlessly appealing to a double standard in your mind.

I would have to have future knowledge of an exactly duplicate scenario, which is impossible because you already dismissed any comparison between Benghazi and this situation as not like for like.

[MindTrap028]

***Moderator notice**
-Cowboy-
The claim that the right wing corporate media have been quiet on the Niger ambush has not been supported in the face of repeated challenges, and is thus retracted.
Any further repeating of this claim without evidence, will be a rule violation.

-General-
Please be mindful of the rules, that claims must be supported in debate threads.
Also, be aware that a reader is not supposed to be required to click on a link in order to see how the link supports a point. That is linkwarz.
Thank You***

[CowboyX]

The story, including Trump's lying, is gone from the news cycle, point made.

[CowboyX]

"It took President Trump 2 days to respond to a vehicle attack in Charlottesville. He said there was "blame on both sides."

It took President Trump 2 hours to respond to a vehicle attack in New York City. He said "being politically correct is fine. But not for this!""




I also checked the Drudge Report twice today (once this morning and once at 2:50pm) and no mention of the Wal-Mart terrorist - plenty (a whole section) on NYC.

[CowboyX]

[CENTER][COLOR="#FF0000"]***Moderator notice**
-Cowboy-
The claim that the right wing corporate media have been quiet on the Niger ambush has not been supported in the face of repeated challenges, and is thus retracted.
Any further repeating of this claim without evidence, will be a rule violation.

Just for clarification I did begin to support this but then Squatch moved the goal posts making it impossible to continue.

[sear]

Do we really need a better example of Republican hypocrisy than judge Ray Moore Accused of Child Molestation?

Well!
Guess what!
We've got one!

“You claim the mantle of the party of family values, and this is the guy you nominate”. President Obama commenting on the Republican party's nomination of Donald Trump (during headline news of Trump boasting about inappropriate behavior w/ women) FOX / Google 16/10/13

When a closet Republican pervert goes rogue, the broader GOP can feign nolo contendere.

But Trump won one Republican primary after another, beating over a dozen better qualified candidates to the nomination, and then the presidency.

Any Republican that has not quit the party is tainted w/ it.

[Ibelsd]

Do we really need a better example of Republican hypocrisy than judge Ray Moore Accused of Child Molestation?

Well!
Guess what!
We've got one!

When a closet Republican pervert goes rogue, the broader GOP can feign nolo contendere.

But Trump won one Republican primary after another, beating over a dozen better qualified candidates to the nomination, and then the presidency.

Any Republican that has not quit the party is tainted w/ it.

I guess this would be a reasonable argument if there was more than two parties in our two party system. I mean where would you like GOP folks to go? No. Don't answer that. Did Democrats turn down Trump's money when he was supporting them? You know he has mostly supported Democrat politicians, right? Does this make them tainted as well? Does any Democrat who has not returned all the money Trump gave them also tainted? Does any Democrat who still supports a politician who took money from Trump also tainted? The truth is that none of it is that straight forward. Nobody is tainted. Trump won despite his moral shortcomings. Not because of them. He won because politicians (those you consider better qualified) have simply not kept their promises. And really, what has Trump done which you'd like to claim would require Republicans to quit the party on principle? He used some vulgar language? He had a divorce? Also, is it your claim all Republicans share the same moral views? Not all Republicans have the same ideology. Some Republicans are actually socially liberal. You are guilty of a hasty generalization fallacy.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hasty_generalization

You simply have not considered all the factors which cause a person to vote for a candidate and then based your conclusion from that faulty premise.

[sear]

"I guess this would be a reasonable argument if there was more than two parties in our two party system." I #290

I'm painfully aware of the Democin / Republicrat political duopoly.
But there are numerous other options.
The Dems had Bernie Sanders.
Republicans had over a dozen other choices, but in State after State chose Trump for the nomination.

There's the Right To Life party. There's Conservative, Liberal, Greens, and more.
I'm a Libertarian. You're welcome to check out lp.org

"You simply have not considered all the factors which cause a person to vote for a candidate and then based your conclusion from that faulty premise." I #290

Please do not condescend to me.
It is not necessary for you to explain the fundamentals of supply & demand to me.
You seem to think voting is a binary.
It never was.

For one, those that can opt in can also opt out.
Those that don't like the suite of available candidates can run for office themselves.

But even if your point were valid it does not explain President Trump!
Republicans could have nominated Jeb!, or Carson, or Christie, or Kasich or ...
When was the next most recent time there were over a dozen candidates in one party, competing for their party's nomination for the presidency? I'm only 63. I don't remember it.

Please dry your crocodile tears. The Republicans bought this one lock, stock, and barrel !!

[Ibelsd]

I'm painfully aware of the Democin / Republicrat political duopoly.
But there are numerous other options.
The Dems had Bernie Sanders.
Republicans had over a dozen other choices, but in State after State chose Trump for the nomination.

There's the Right To Life party. There's Conservative, Liberal, Greens, and more.
I'm a Libertarian. You're welcome to check out lp.org

Please do not condescend to me.
It is not necessary for you to explain the fundamentals of supply & demand to me.
You seem to think voting is a binary.
It never was.

For one, those that can opt in can also opt out.
Those that don't like the suite of available candidates can run for office themselves.

But even if your point were valid it does not explain President Trump!
Republicans could have nominated Jeb!, or Carson, or Christie, or Kasich or ...
When was the next most recent time there were over a dozen candidates in one party, competing for their party's nomination for the presidency? I'm only 63. I don't remember it.

Please dry your crocodile tears. The Republicans bought this one lock, stock, and barrel !!

[/QUOTE]


You open by stating that you are painfully aware of our two party system. As such, you are acknowledging that the other parties you mentioned are not relevant.

You then acknowledge voting is a complex decision, conceding one of my premises. You then bizarrely, go on a rant about how voters could choose to run for office themselves. So, Republicans could have run for President instead of voting for Trump or the other candidates???? Does this even remotely sound like a reasonable thing for the average person to do? Republicans could have voted for one of the other GOP candidates, but among my premises was that those other candidates had been consistently disappointing. The GOP establishment had been consistently disappointing. So, in response, voters chose the non-establishment candidate. It could have been Carson or Fiorina. For whatever reason Trump's brand of populism provided the middle finger to the establishment that voters were looking for. So, now what? You expect these voters to say sorry?

Your conclusion makes a sweeping generalization. A point you chose to ignore, instead beginning your rebuttal with charges of me being condescending and then concluding with charges that I was crying or complaining. Don't think I didn't catch your less than subtle inclusion of your age, as though, that makes you an authority on politics or gives your voice more grandiosity. It does neither. You didn't even explain what you believe Trump did/has done/is doing which makes him vile enough that you believe voters and/or the GOP should feel tainted. You merely made the claim unsupported. You also didn't explain why Trump's taint-worthiness does not equally taint the Democrats who accepted his support over the years. Is it worse to be the tainter or the taintee I wonder. The Clintons apparently felt close enough to Trump to attend his wedding (at least one of them) and accepted money from the Donald and his family over the years. No. I don't think anyone should feel tainted. The choices were plenty, but the differences were slim. You had a choice of two dozen cracked eggs and you are upset that the voters selected the wrong one.