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

[Soggy in NOLA]

It isn't whataboutism... it's pointing out the left dismisses every claim against democrats while embracing every claim against the right as gospel.

 

[blackhawk]

It’s not up there with vast right wing consiparcy or just a FOX News story but give it time.

 

[Meathead]

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?

LOCK HER UP ANYWAY!!!

 

[jc456]

no, it's actually the lack of evidence to anything you discuss. What we find humerus is your hypocrisy to saying things your side actually does. it's called gaslighting.

 

[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?

LOCK HER UP ANYWAY!!!

If Hillary was charged with an actual crime and convicted, liberals would not give a shit.

 

[jc456]

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?

LOCK HER UP ANYWAY!!!

If Hillary was charged with an actual crime and convicted, liberals would not give a shit.

What more do you have on Moore?

 

[Billy000]

no, it's actually the lack of evidence to anything you discuss. What we find humerus is your hypocrisy to saying things your side actually does. it's called gaslighting.

No way, conservatives are far more guilty of this fallacy.

 

[jc456]

no, it's actually the lack of evidence to anything you discuss. What we find humerus is your hypocrisy to saying things your side actually does. it's called gaslighting.

No way, conservatives are far more guilty of this fallacy.

That’s just silly

 

[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?

LOCK HER UP ANYWAY!!!

If Hillary was charged with an actual crime and convicted, liberals would not give a shit.

What more do you have on Moore?

I don’t have anything on Moore. Why would I? I don’t pretend he is guilty of ALL charges while you pretend he is innocent of ALL charges. You’re the biased one, believe me.

 

[Timmy]

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?

LOCK HER UP ANYWAY!!!

If Hillary was charged with an actual crime and convicted, liberals would not give a shit.

What more do you have on Moore?

I don’t have anything on Moore. Why would I? I don’t pretend he is guilty of ALL charges while you pretend he is innocent of ALL charges. You’re the biased one, believe me.

Look, if it was one person You have a point . It’s multiple . And Moore ain’t denying that he’s a cradle robber . Even his wife is 14years younger. Plus he’s a crazy religious freak from Bama.

All signs point to yes!

 

[jc456]

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?

LOCK HER UP ANYWAY!!!

If Hillary was charged with an actual crime and convicted, liberals would not give a shit.

What more do you have on Moore?

I don’t have anything on Moore. Why would I? I don’t pretend he is guilty of ALL charges while you pretend he is innocent of ALL charges. You’re the biased one, believe me.

Sorry we live in a society of innocent until proven....PROVEN not accused

 

[jc456]

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?

LOCK HER UP ANYWAY!!!

If Hillary was charged with an actual crime and convicted, liberals would not give a shit.

What more do you have on Moore?

I don’t have anything on Moore. Why would I? I don’t pretend he is guilty of ALL charges while you pretend he is innocent of ALL charges. You’re the biased one, believe me.

Look, if it was one person You have a point . It’s multiple . And Moore ain’t denying that he’s a cradle robber . Even his wife is 14years younger. Plus he’s a crazy religious freak from Bama.

All signs point to yes!

Points to nothing except your program

 

[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?

LOCK HER UP ANYWAY!!!

If Hillary was charged with an actual crime and convicted, liberals would not give a shit.

What more do you have on Moore?

I don’t have anything on Moore. Why would I? I don’t pretend he is guilty of ALL charges while you pretend he is innocent of ALL charges. You’re the biased one, believe me.

Look, if it was one person You have a point . It’s multiple . And Moore ain’t denying that he’s a cradle robber . Even his wife is 14years younger. Plus he’s a crazy religious freak from Bama.

All signs point to yes!

I agree he is likely guilty of at least most of the charges. Of course many are outside the statute. My point is, I don’t pretend to know something about it. I don’t pretend to have evidence. Cons have convinced himself he is completely innocent.

 

[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?

LOCK HER UP ANYWAY!!!

If Hillary was charged with an actual crime and convicted, liberals would not give a shit.

What more do you have on Moore?

I don’t have anything on Moore. Why would I? I don’t pretend he is guilty of ALL charges while you pretend he is innocent of ALL charges. You’re the biased one, believe me.

Sorry we live in a society of innocent until proven....PROVEN not accused

You’re such a doofus. I didnt say anything like it. You need to learn how to use talking points properly. Yikes.

 

[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.
.

 

[jc456]

LOCK HER UP ANYWAY!!!

If Hillary was charged with an actual crime and convicted, liberals would not give a shit.

What more do you have on Moore?

I don’t have anything on Moore. Why would I? I don’t pretend he is guilty of ALL charges while you pretend he is innocent of ALL charges. You’re the biased one, believe me.

Look, if it was one person You have a point . It’s multiple . And Moore ain’t denying that he’s a cradle robber . Even his wife is 14years younger. Plus he’s a crazy religious freak from Bama.

All signs point to yes!

I agree he is likely guilty of at least most of the charges. Of course many are outside the statute. My point is, I don’t pretend to know something about it. I don’t pretend to have evidence. Cons have convinced himself he is completely innocent.

If he steps down he implicates him and there is no evidence . He will stay in.

 

[Cellblock2429]

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?

/——/ Maybe if you could defend the democRATS ...... Nahhhh never happen. Bwhahahaha

 

[jc456]

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.
.

38 years we need more than just total recall we need something more to tell him to step down

 

[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.

 

[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?

/——/ Maybe if you could defend the democRATS ...... Nahhhh never happen. Bwhahahaha

Huh?