Trump’s press secretary says he showed classified docs to people on Mar-a-Lago dining patio

[Rebound]

“Former White House press secretary Stephanie Grisham said Saturday that she saw former President Trump show classified documents to people at his Mar-a-Lago residence in Florida.

“I watched him show documents to people at Mar-a-Lago on the dining room patio,” Grisham, who served as Trump’s chief spokesperson from July 2019 to April 2020, said in an interview on MSNBC. “So, he has no respect for classified information, never did.” 

"I can't stress enough how by being so loose with this stuff, he's potentially putting people in danger," she continued. "And yeah, I had a top security clearance and it's very, very hard to obtain. So it's very important and it's vital to our country and our national security. The only people with these clearances have access to any of these documents."

“Last month, Grisham needled Trump over his handling of classified documents during a CNN interview.

"Why didn't he give them back? It's because he thinks those are his," she said at the time. "He's like a child holding on to his little toy train and nobody is going to take it from him."

https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/4080498-former-trump-press-secretary-says-he-showed-classified-documents-to-people-on-mar-a-lago-dining-patio/amp/

 

https://www.msnbc.com/weekends-with-alex-witt/watch/fmr-trump-press-secretary-i-watched-him-show-documents-to-people-at-mar-a-lago-186424389588

[robosmith]

Really this is old news. It was reported YEARS AGO that Trump was discussing classified subjects with foreign leaders within earshot of fellow diners at Mar-a-Lago.

[CdnFox]

9 hours ago, Rebound said:

“I watched him show documents to people at Mar-a-Lago on the dining room patio,” Grisham, who served as Trump’s chief spokesperson from July 2019 to April 2020, said in an interview on MSNBC. “So, he has no respect for classified information, never did.” 

"I can't stress enough how by being so loose with this stuff, he's potentially putting people in danger," she continued. "And yeah, I had a top security clearance and it's very, very hard to obtain. So it's very important and it's vital to our country and our national security. The only people with these clearances have access to any of these documents."

So she considered it a huge deal with lives on the line!!!  Well that certainly explains why she immediately reported it and .... Oh, wait....

But hey - she was employed it was a good job and nobody wants to rat out their boss, so of COURSE she waited till she was no longer in his employ and then immediately...   Oh, wait...

I think it's pretty obvious at this point trump plays fast and loose with classified documents, like other gov't officials we could name     But - these passionate expose's which are PAID btw where the person claims that they witnessed something truly horrible and terrible ...  but never mentioned it till years later when they get paid to so ....... kinda rings hollow.

[Rebound]

2 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

So she considered it a huge deal with lives on the line!!!  Well that certainly explains why she immediately reported it and .... Oh, wait....

But hey - she was employed it was a good job and nobody wants to rat out their boss, so of COURSE she waited till she was no longer in his employ and then immediately...   Oh, wait...

I think it's pretty obvious at this point trump plays fast and loose with classified documents, like other gov't officials we could name     But - these passionate expose's which are PAID btw where the person claims that they witnessed something truly horrible and terrible ...  but never mentioned it till years later when they get paid to so ....... kinda rings hollow.

Trump is not a government official. 

[CdnFox]

11 minutes ago, Rebound said:

Trump is not a government official. 

He was during the  time she saw him doing this. And then  after she's not working for him and has no reason not to bring it up with the authorities for THREE YEARS - suddenly someone offers her a whack of cash and she 'magicaly' remembers this very dangerous thing   LOL

[Michael Hardner]

1 hour ago, Rebound said:

Trump is not a government official. 

Also the others cooperated with authorities with regards to classified information.

Including Hillary Clinton who lost the 2016 election over much less.

It's becoming clear that the double standard works like this:

-something happened involving a Democrat: play up all the unknowns, create conjectures over everything

Republican:play down all evidence as suspicious, blame conspiracy groups

The fact is that we as individuals can only know what we are told.  And without objective sources, we are back to a tribal society.

This is why the new populism is actually ANTI conservative; it renders our trusted institutions as useless and re-establishes an incompetent bourgeois elite.

 

[Nationalist]

23 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

Also the others cooperated with authorities with regards to classified information.

Including Hillary Clinton who lost the 2016 election over much less.

It's becoming clear that the double standard works like this:

-something happened involving a Democrat: play up all the unknowns, create conjectures over everything

Republican:play down all evidence as suspicious, blame conspiracy groups

The fact is that we as individuals can only know what we are told.  And without objective sources, we are back to a tribal society.

This is why the new populism is actually ANTI conservative; it renders our trusted institutions as useless and re-establishes an incompetent bourgeois elite.

 

Hmm...

Hunter Biden's sweetheart deal.

Whistle-blowers telling us these institutions are burying investigations into Democrats.

Hillary-Billary and her smashed PC and cell phones...not prosecuted.

Obama's digital copies of his classified documents. 

Declaring parents "terrorists".

The Steele Docier and FISA.

Mike...these "trusted institutions" have proven, over and over, that they are completely untrustworthy. 

[Rebound]

19 minutes ago, Nationalist said:

Hmm...

Hunter Biden's sweetheart deal.

Whistle-blowers telling us these institutions are burying investigations into Democrats.

Hillary-Billary and her smashed PC and cell phones...not prosecuted.

Obama's digital copies of his classified documents. 

Declaring parents "terrorists".

The Steele Docier and FISA.

Mike...these "trusted institutions" have proven, over and over, that they are completely untrustworthy. 

Who is investigating Hunter Biden? David Weiss.  He is a Federal Prosecutor appointed by Donald Trump.  
 

Biden could have fired this prosecutor. In fact, it is standard practice to fire all federal attorneys when a new President comes in, and then appoint new ones. But Biden says, “No, if I fire the guy Trump appointed to investigate and prosecute my son, it will appear that I am abusing my authority.” So Biden kept him. And now the MAGA Republicans turn on Weiss, even though Weiss is the guy THEY CHOSE.  They’re eating their young.  There’s zero evidence that Weiss did anything wrong; he just wrote a letter to Congress stating that he hasn’t been pressured and he can investigate Biden anywhere he wants in the US. And he got a guilty plea already. 
 

But you don’t care; facts don’t matter. All you care is “I heard it on Fox News so it must be true, so how comes Hunter hasn’t been arrested for stealing the Hope Diamond and killing John Lennon?”

Edited July 5, 2023 by Rebound

[Nationalist]

1 hour ago, Rebound said:

Who is investigating Hunter Biden? David Weiss.  He is a Federal Prosecutor appointed by Donald Trump.  
 

Biden could have fired this prosecutor. In fact, it is standard practice to fire all federal attorneys when a new President comes in, and then appoint new ones. But Biden says, “No, if I fire the guy Trump appointed to investigate and prosecute my son, it will appear that I am abusing my authority.” So Biden kept him. And now the MAGA Republicans turn on Weiss, even though Weiss is the guy THEY CHOSE.  They’re eating their young.  There’s zero evidence that Weiss did anything wrong; he just wrote a letter to Congress stating that he hasn’t been pressured and he can investigate Biden anywhere he wants in the US. And he got a guilty plea already. 
 

But you don’t care; facts don’t matter. All you care is “I heard it on Fox News so it must be true, so how comes Hunter hasn’t been arrested for stealing the Hope Diamond and killing John Lennon?”

Or listening to the whistle-blowers. You remember whistle-blowers don't you? I mean...you used one to try to impeach Trump. At the time, we were all instructed to BELIEVE the whistle-blower.

What changed?

[Rebound]

1 hour ago, Nationalist said:

Or listening to the whistle-blowers. You remember whistle-blowers don't you? I mean...you used one to try to impeach Trump. At the time, we were all instructed to BELIEVE the whistle-blower.

What changed?

NONE OF THIS HAS ANYTHING AT ALL TO DO WITH THE UNDENIABLE FACT THAT DONALD TRUMP HAS BEEN CHARGED WITH SEVENTY ONE FELONIES INCLUDING THE THEFT OF AMERICAS NUCLEAR SECRETS 

 

Weiss, who is a Federal Prosecutor appointed by Donald Trump, sent Congress a letter last week which explained why Mr. Shapley’s allegations are all false. He explained the process by which a Federal Prosecutor can prosecute crimes outside his jurisdiction, and he said that he has never been prevented from doing so.  
 

Mr. Shapley claims that Federal Prosecutor Weiss blocked Shapley’s promotion at the IRS, which seems patently absurd. The Department of Justice has no authority over the Treasury Department in its personnel decisions. 
 

So as far as anyone can see, Mr. Shapley has no facts.  He asked Mr. Weiss to prosecute H Biden on some tax evasion issues outside of Weiss’ jurisdiction. Mr. Weiss asked prosecutors in the relevant jurisdictions if the felt there was a valid prosecution, and they declined. Mr. Weiss said that he could have chosen to apply for “Special Prosecutor” status, the AG told him he could choose to, but he did not. 
 

We shall see what happens next. I keep telling you, over and over: No Democrat cares about the escapades of Hunter Biden, any more than we cared about Billy Carter or Roger Clinton. If he broke a law, prosecute him, but only the wrongdoings of Joe Biden matter.  
 

 

Edited July 5, 2023 by Rebound

[WestCanMan]

3 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

Also the others cooperated with authorities with regards to classified information.

Including Hillary Clinton who lost the 2016 election over much less.

You're completely off your rocker dude. She had evidence destroyed two weeks after it was subpoenaed and then she pretended that she "fell backwards on the stairs and hit her head" so she just answered "I can't remember" to literally everything that the FBI asked her. Then she gave long speeches with no memory recall issues whatsoever during hours-long campaign speeches the next week.

And if you can believe it, that's the second time in her life that she has had temporary amnesia, the first time being when she was interrogated by the FBI the first time for her part in the Whitewater scandal. 

Your definition of "she cooperated with authorities" is "she lied under oath and destroyed evidence".

Quote

It's becoming clear that the double standard works like this:

-something happened involving a Democrat: play up all the unknowns, create conjectures over everything

You mean: "Ban people and even respected newspapers from social media for talking about it, and pretend that it's no big deal."

Quote

Republican:play down all evidence as suspicious, blame conspiracy groups

When the Republican party doesn't do anything the FBI commits actual crimes it make it look suspicious bud.

Where have you lived for the past 7 years? What's your IQ? Are you honestly pretending not to remember that the FBI committed actual crimes to get warrants to spy on Trump, and that they lied about him to smear his reputation for years? Then they let out false intel to get people banned from socail media for telling the truth about Biden....

That all happened. You can decide for yourself if you want to ignore it but don't bring your lies here little boy. 

Quote

The fact is that we as individuals can only know what we are told.  And without objective sources, we are back to a tribal society.

Stop complaining about information sources now buddy.

You've fully supported CTV/CNN/CBC and all of their lies and false narratives for the past decade  - you defended those lies like your own children. You're gonna reap what you've sown for the rest of your life and what makes you think that you deserve better? 

Go take your 5th covid jab and stfu Mikey. 

Edited July 5, 2023 by WestCanMan

[Rebound]

11 minutes ago, WestCanMan said:

You're completely off your rocker dude. She had evidence destroyed two weeks after it was subpoenaed and then she pretended that she "fell backwards on the stairs and hit her head" so she just answered "I can't remember" to literally everything that the FBI asked her. Then she gave long speeches with no memory recall issues whatsoever during hours-long campaign speeches the next week.

And if you can believe it, that's the second time in her life that she has had temporary amnesia, the first time being when she was interrogated by the FBI the first time for her part in the Whitewater scandal. 

Your definition of "she cooperated with authorities" is "she lied under oath and destroyed evidence".

You mean: "Ban people and even respected newspapers from social media for talking about it, and pretend that it's no big deal."

When the Republican party doesn't do anything the FBI commits actual crimes it make it look suspicious bud.

Where have you lived for the past 7 years? What's your IQ? Are you honestly pretending not to remember that the FBI committed actual crimes to get warrants to spy on Trump, and that they lied about him to smear his reputation for years? Then they let out false intel to get people banned from socail media for telling the truth about Biden....

That all happened. You can decide for yourself if you want to ignore it but don't bring your lies here little boy. 

Stop complaining about information sources now buddy.

You've fully supported CTV/CNN/CBC and all of their lies and false narratives for the past decade  - you defended those lies like your own children. You're gonna reap what you've sown for the rest of your life and what makes you think that you deserve better? 

Go take your 5th covid jab and stfu Mikey. 

STFU. This thread isn’t about Hillary Clinton. It’s about Donald Trump’s hand-picked, loyal press secretary stating that she saw him show Classified documents to unauthorized people at Mar-a-Lago.  
 

Whatabout Hillary and Hunter and Bobby and Billy doesn’t cut it. You can’t defend Trump’s illegal actions, so you defect with your conspiracy theories and Whataboutisms. 
 

It’s all you guys do. I have no problem defending the attacks you make. Easy-peasy: The Republican-appointed FBI Director stated that Hilary Clinton did nothing that would warrant prosecution. End of story.  
 

Orange Man, who will soon be Orange Jumpsuit Man, has been charged with 71 felonies and will soon be charged with more, in Washington DC and Georgia. 

Edited July 5, 2023 by Rebound

[CdnFox]

6 minutes ago, WestCanMan said:

You're completely off your rocker dude. She had evidence destroyed two weeks after it was subpoenaed and then she pretended that she "fell backwards on the stairs and hit her head" so she just answered "I can't remember" to literally everything that the FBI asked her. Then she gave long speeches with no memory recall issues whatsoever during hours-long campaign speeches the next week.

And if you can believe it, that's the second time in her life that she has had temporary amnesia, the first time being when she was interrogated by the FBI the first time for her part in the Whitewater scandal. 

Your definition of "she cooperated with authorities" is "she lied under oath and destroyed evidence".

You mean: "Ban people and even respected newspapers from social media for talking about it, and pretend that it's no big deal."

When the Republican party doesn't do anything the FBI commits actual crimes it make it look suspicious bud.

Where have you lived for the past 7 years? What's your IQ? Are you honestly pretending not to remember that the FBI committed actual crimes to get warrants to spy on Trump, and that they lied about him to smear his reputation for years? Then they let out false intel to get people banned from socail media for telling the truth about Biden....

That all happened. You can decide for yourself if you want to ignore it but don't bring your lies here little boy. 

Stop complaining about information sources now buddy.

You've fully supported CTV/CNN/CBC and all of their lies and false narratives for the past decade  - you defended those lies like your own children. You're gonna reap what you've sown for the rest of your life and what makes you think that you deserve better? 

Go take your 5th covid jab and stfu Mikey. 

The left wing's ability to re-write history is legendary. 
 

"Hillary co-operated with the investigation". ROFLMAO!!!   I mean, anyone who's so far gone as to say that is living in their own little virtual reality bubble and there's no discussing it with them.

 

Hillary knowingly kept an illegal server and tonnes of classified documents that obviously were shared with others given they were on weiners laptop - "there's no way we can really know what happened and she fully cooperated with the investigation. All the evidence is circumstantial.

Trump colluded with the russians to steal the election from hillary "HE'S GUILTY AS HELL AND HE NEEDS TO BE PUNISHED AND THE FBI WAS RIGHT TO ILLEGALLY OBTAIN WARRANTS!!!!!!"

 

LOL - you just can't argue with that.

 

[SNOWFLAKE]

3 hours ago, Nationalist said:

Hmm...

Hunter Biden's sweetheart deal.

Whistle-blowers telling us these institutions are burying investigations into Democrats.

Hillary-Billary and her smashed PC and cell phones...not prosecuted.

Obama's digital copies of his classified documents. 

Declaring parents "terrorists".

The Steele Docier and FISA.

Mike...these "trusted institutions" have proven, over and over, that they are completely untrustworthy. 

Whataboutism gives a clue to its meaning in its name. It is not merely the changing of a subject to deflect away from an earlier subject as a political strategy; it’s essentially a reversal of accusation, arguing that an opponent is guilty of an offense just as egregious or worse than what the original party was accused of doing, however unconnected the offenses may be.

The tactic behind whataboutism has been around for a long time. Rhetoricians generally consider it to be a form of tu quoque, which means "you too" in Latin and involves charging your accuser with whatever it is you've just been accused of rather than refuting the truth of the accusation made against you. Tu quoque is considered to be a logical fallacy, because whether or not the original accuser is likewise guilty of an offense has no bearing on the truth value of the original accusation.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/words-at-play/whataboutism-origin-meaning

Whataboutism is an argumentative tactic where a person or group responds to an accusation or difficult question by deflection. Instead of addressing the point made, they counter it with “but what about X?”.
https://flaglerlive.com/176623/whataboutism-explained/

47 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

The left wing's ability to re-write history is legendary. 
 

"Hillary co-operated with the investigation". ROFLMAO!!!   I mean, anyone who's so far gone as to say that is living in their own little virtual reality bubble and there's no discussing it with them.

 

Hillary knowingly kept an illegal server and tonnes of classified documents that obviously were shared with others given they were on weiners laptop - "there's no way we can really know what happened and she fully cooperated with the investigation. All the evidence is circumstantial.

Trump colluded with the russians to steal the election from hillary "HE'S GUILTY AS HELL AND HE NEEDS TO BE PUNISHED AND THE FBI WAS RIGHT TO ILLEGALLY OBTAIN WARRANTS!!!!!!"

 

LOL - you just can't argue with that.

 

Whataboutism gives a clue to its meaning in its name. It is not merely the changing of a subject to deflect away from an earlier subject as a political strategy; it’s essentially a reversal of accusation, arguing that an opponent is guilty of an offense just as egregious or worse than what the original party was accused of doing, however unconnected the offenses may be.

The tactic behind whataboutism has been around for a long time. Rhetoricians generally consider it to be a form of tu quoque, which means "you too" in Latin and involves charging your accuser with whatever it is you've just been accused of rather than refuting the truth of the accusation made against you. Tu quoque is considered to be a logical fallacy, because whether or not the original accuser is likewise guilty of an offense has no bearing on the truth value of the original accusation.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/words-at-play/whataboutism-origin-meaning

Whataboutism is an argumentative tactic where a person or group responds to an accusation or difficult question by deflection. Instead of addressing the point made, they counter it with “but what about X?”.
https://flaglerlive.com/176623/whataboutism-explained/

[WestCanMan]

44 minutes ago, Rebound said:

STFU. This thread isn’t about Hillary Clinton.

STFU stupid. I didn't bring Hillary into this, MH did. He tried to pretend that Hillary did everything right when she was being investigated and it was the exact opposite. 

TBH, if you don't believe that Hillary was lying to the FBI then you have to believe that she's prone to bouts of amnesia which is disqualifying for a presidential candidate.

Quote

Whatabout Hillary and Hunter and Bobby and Billy doesn’t cut it. You can’t defend Trump’s illegal actions, so you defect with your conspiracy theories and Whataboutisms. 

There's no such thing as an on-point whataboutism.

The theme here is "political witch hunts" and it's just a fact that the FBI is a political weapon now, not a legitimate police force. 

Quote

It’s all you guys do. I have no problem defending the attacks you make. Easy-peasy:

No you don't. 

If you did them you wouldn't rush to cry "WHATABOUTISM!!! ?"

Quote

Orange Man, who will soon be Orange Jumpsuit Man, has been charged with 71 felonies and will soon be charged with more, in Washington DC and Georgia. 

You should be alarmed by that, not titillated. 

[WestCanMan]

4 minutes ago, SNOWFLAKE said:

Whataboutism gives a clue to its meaning in its name. It is not merely the changing of a subject to deflect away from an earlier subject as a political strategy; it’s essentially a reversal of accusation, arguing that an opponent is guilty of an offense just as egregious or worse than what the original party was accused of doing, however unconnected the offenses may be.

The tactic behind whataboutism has been around for a long time. Rhetoricians generally consider it to be a form of tu quoque, which means "you too" in Latin and involves charging your accuser with whatever it is you've just been accused of rather than refuting the truth of the accusation made against you. Tu quoque is considered to be a logical fallacy, because whether or not the original accuser is likewise guilty of an offense has no bearing on the truth value of the original accusation.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/words-at-play/whataboutism-origin-meaning

Whataboutism is an argumentative tactic where a person or group responds to an accusation or difficult question by deflection. Instead of addressing the point made, they counter it with “but what about X?”.
https://flaglerlive.com/176623/whataboutism-explained/

Whataboutism gives a clue to its meaning in its name. It is not merely the changing of a subject to deflect away from an earlier subject as a political strategy; it’s essentially a reversal of accusation, arguing that an opponent is guilty of an offense just as egregious or worse than what the original party was accused of doing, however unconnected the offenses may be.

The tactic behind whataboutism has been around for a long time. Rhetoricians generally consider it to be a form of tu quoque, which means "you too" in Latin and involves charging your accuser with whatever it is you've just been accused of rather than refuting the truth of the accusation made against you. Tu quoque is considered to be a logical fallacy, because whether or not the original accuser is likewise guilty of an offense has no bearing on the truth value of the original accusation.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/words-at-play/whataboutism-origin-meaning

Whataboutism is an argumentative tactic where a person or group responds to an accusation or difficult question by deflection. Instead of addressing the point made, they counter it with “but what about X?”.
https://flaglerlive.com/176623/whataboutism-explained/

In law it's not called a "whataboutism", it's called a legal precedent and it's the standard for fairness. 

"What that person served ten years in prison for, the next person should serve ten years for as well".

[robosmith]

6 hours ago, CdnFox said:

So she considered it a huge deal with lives on the line!!!  Well that certainly explains why she immediately reported it and .... Oh, wait....

But hey - she was employed it was a good job and nobody wants to rat out their boss, so of COURSE she waited till she was no longer in his employ and then immediately...   Oh, wait...

I think it's pretty obvious at this point trump plays fast and loose with classified documents, like other gov't officials we could name     But - these passionate expose's which are PAID btw where the person claims that they witnessed something truly horrible and terrible ...  but never mentioned it till years later when they get paid to so ....... kinda rings hollow.

IF she testifies under oath at the trial, that is SOLID EVIDENCE in COURT, whether YOU doubt it or not. ?

[Deluge]

16 hours ago, Rebound said:

“Former White House press secretary Stephanie Grisham said Saturday that she saw former President Trump show classified documents to people at his Mar-a-Lago residence in Florida.

“I watched him show documents to people at Mar-a-Lago on the dining room patio,” Grisham, who served as Trump’s chief spokesperson from July 2019 to April 2020, said in an interview on MSNBC. “So, he has no respect for classified information, never did.” 

"I can't stress enough how by being so loose with this stuff, he's potentially putting people in danger," she continued. "And yeah, I had a top security clearance and it's very, very hard to obtain. So it's very important and it's vital to our country and our national security. The only people with these clearances have access to any of these documents."

“Last month, Grisham needled Trump over his handling of classified documents during a CNN interview.

"Why didn't he give them back? It's because he thinks those are his," she said at the time. "He's like a child holding on to his little toy train and nobody is going to take it from him."

https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/4080498-former-trump-press-secretary-says-he-showed-classified-documents-to-people-on-mar-a-lago-dining-patio/amp/

 

https://www.msnbc.com/weekends-with-alex-witt/watch/fmr-trump-press-secretary-i-watched-him-show-documents-to-people-at-mar-a-lago-186424389588

Uh-oh. The enemy has our playbook. I guess we'd better brace ourselves for attack! 

[Queenmandy85]

Both Secretary Clinton and President Trump are presumed to be innocent unless proven guilty in Court. Evidence is not proof of anything until it is tested in a court. Speculation of any possible verdict of a potential trial is inappropriate.

Edited July 5, 2023 by Queenmandy85

[CdnFox]

49 minutes ago, SNOWFLAKE said:

Whataboutism gives a clue to its meaning in its name. It is not merely the changing of a subject to deflect away from an earlier subject as a political strategy; it’s essentially a reversal of accusation, arguing that an opponent is guilty of an offense just as egregious or worse than what the original party was accused of doing, however unconnected the offenses may be.

 

No, that is absolutely not what whataboutism is.  You were closer in the first part.  Whataboutism is trying to excuse one wrong by claiming that another different wrong has taken place which is similar or worse, but not the same.  It's literally NOT a reversal of the charge, which is what makes it dishonest.

If you say "you stole from me" and i say "So what, you cheated on  your girlfriend and that's just as bad", that is whataboutism.  I should be forgiven my sin because you also have sinned before in a similar but different fashion. .

If you say "you stole from me" and i say "So what, you stole from me last week" -  that is NOT whataboutism. That is precedent. For it to be whataboutism it has to be sort of related but different.

When you say that someone cannot complain about a current wrong because they did not complain about the same wrong previously when it benefited them then that is NOT whataboutism. 

Here's mirriam's ACTUAL DEFINITION:

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/whataboutism

By whataboutism I mean the way any discussion can be short-circuited by saying "but what about x???" where x is usually something that's not really equivalent but is close enough to turn the conversation into mush.

 

But at least we know where your intellectual capacity is now

 

Edited July 5, 2023 by CdnFox

[SNOWFLAKE]

41 minutes ago, WestCanMan said:

In law it's not called a "whataboutism", it's called a legal precedent and it's the standard for fairness. 

"What that person served ten years in prison for, the next person should serve ten years for as well".

Except in these cases where it is used to defend wrongdoing by Trump by saying....

So, the year is 2025 or 2027 and some Republican is charged with something, the mindless minions who make up the Right will still be going.......... BUT HILLARY!!

 

[SNOWFLAKE]

1 minute ago, CdnFox said:

No, that is absolutely not what whataboutism is.  You were closer in the first part.  Whataboutism is trying to excuse one wrong by claiming that another different wrong has taken place which is similar or worse, but not the same.  It's literally NOT a reversal of the charge, which is what makes it dishonest.

If you say "you stole from me" and i say "So what, you cheated on  your girlfriend and that's just as bad", that is whataboutism.  I should be forgiven my sin because you also have sinned before in a similar but different fashion. .

If you say "you stole from me" and i say "So what, you stole from me last week" -  that is NOT whataboutism. That is precedent. For it to be whataboutism it has to be sort of related but different.

When you say that someone cannot complain about a current wrong because they did not complain about the same wrong previously when it benefited them then that is NOT whataboutism. 

Here's mirriam's ACTUAL DEFINITION:

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/whataboutism

By whataboutism I mean the way any discussion can be short-circuited by saying "but what about x???" where x is usually something that's not really equivalent but is close enough to turn the conversation into mush.

 

But at least we know where your intellectual capacity is now

 

I wouldn't go there, my intellectual acuity is so far above yours, you don't even register on the bottom of my sole. If your lot want to act like complete fools by constantly bringing up a whataboutism because some bad news has been released by your God and Idol, that is on you. I would be too damned ashamed. But as we already know, the jackasses that make up the Right have no shame. 

[CdnFox]

1 minute ago, SNOWFLAKE said:

Except in these cases where it is used to defend wrongdoing by Trump by saying....

So, the year is 2025 or 2027 and some Republican is charged with something, the mindless minions who make up the Right will still be going.......... BUT HILLARY!!

 

Nope - that's still precedent.

"you cannot say this is wrong when i do it if you did not say it was wrong when you did it" is precedent.  Not whataboutism

If he said "You cannot say this is wrong when you've done something sort of similar or worse" then it is.

Precedent says "i did no wrong because in the past this has been considered acceptable"

Whataboutism says "I did no wrong because in the past other people did wrongs which were just as bad or worse".

Big difference.

[West]

My view is far too many documents are "classified" to run a democracy. 

Even in FOIA requests they send you a bunch of black ink. 

[CdnFox]

1 minute ago, SNOWFLAKE said:

I wouldn't go there, my intellectual acuity is so far above yours, you don't even register on the bottom of my sole

ROFLMAO - you couldn't even get a simple definition right    I'd say it's a bit too late now to claim a high intellect