Criticizing Is NOT Supporting

What about when one spends an inordinate amount of time defending someone from criticism? Should that not be construed as support?

 

Absolutely. And with few exceptions here, everyone has done so to some degree.

So here we sit. A bunch of hypocrites.

 

Moderate inordinancy.

 

Tar and feather the guilty....all of them.

DD

 

In theory you are correct but context and relevance does matter. Regarding recent discussions on influence peddling aimed at the Clintons and the Obama Administrations versus the Trump family and Trump Administration the latter is the one currently in power. While the doings of the previous Administration are important historically and since it was relatively recent certainly within the scope of investigation regarding any potential criminal activity, that Administration is out of power and its chosen successor lost. Treating them as equivalent in relevance is a false dichotomy and one that is clearly meant to distract from the doings of the current Administation. It would be as if in 2013 people kept on bringing up Romney when criticisms were leveled at Obama.

Many posters don't even disguise this and trumpet about how "the script is flipped on the Russian investigation" or "connecting the dots on Clinton and Russia" are clearly trying to deflect from Trump's dealings with Russia by claiming that Clinton is the one who has really been colluding with the Russians. "YOU'RE THE PUPPET!" It's certainly possible that both the Trump camp and the Clinton camp dealt with the Russians in less than ethical ways the difference is that Trump is currently the President and the implications of Trump's dealings with the Russians have far greater consequences than Clinton who lost.

In regards to yourself you like to put yourself forward as a pox on both houses guy. No problem with that position that said if you are truly about that why even bother to make a thread like this? Have you considered that your focus on going after a candidate who lost the election while being relatively quiet about the person who did win might strike many as not being that impartial? Further as noted in another thread you have specifically stated after Sanders lost the primaries you wanted Trump because you felt he could best shake up the system doesn't strike me as you being impartial.

 

I have criticized Clinton plenty. And defended her. I haven't defended Trump much though.

Look, everyone deserves criticism in public office. EVERYONE. It's not about criticizing or defending it's about responding to the accuracy of the critique or defense

 

Clear differences in leadership position. Both side might be tarnish, but no, it's not the same equivalent crap. The level of crazies, lies, fabrication, untruth, conflict of interest, so on is way past normal politic on one side.

 

Criticize the left and Hillary all you want. It's welcomed. But I'll debate and disagree when false equivalencies are made. For example Trump is a far worse candidate than Hillary.

 

I

I've criticized Trump plenty but when the criticism of Trump is some small insufficient thing that no one would bat an eye if it was someone else than I have to call you out on it.

 

The issue is Trump fans who watch FoxNews religiously cannot objectively criticize Hillary or even Obama on what should be criticized. There is truly no attempt to ground the conspiracy theories to reality and facts, and the theories rarely affect people’s lives. 99% of FoxNews viewers wouldn’t even know what Uranium was before Sean Hannity told them that selling it was a breach in our democracy.

However on the other hand... ensuring that other countries or one party cannot interfere with my vote (my one right that gives me any say so in this country), is a serious thing objectively. Getting worked up over Uranium is totally different than getting worked up over our fragile right to vote in a democratic election.

You want to have a serious discussion and objective criticism on Hillary... I’m game.

Do you guys really want to have an objective critical conversation of Trump? It sure as hell doesn’t look like it. You’ll never take an objectively critical stance on anything Trump does because FoxNews and Trumpism in general has trained the right to approach any topic with the sole purpose of trolling and pissing off “the enemy” like it’s a game. You are incapable of objective critical conversion if there is a hint that the other person on the other side of the conversation is a liberal. And if you are critical of Trump... you are a liberal. Jeff Flake... liberal. George W Bush.... liberal. We are just trained to not be able to discuss these things objectively by the way FoxNews has trained one side to construct any conversation involving Clinton or Trump.

 

And look... maybe election integrity isn’t important to you, and that’s fine.

However if you want to have an objective discussion about something like Trump working with Russia to win the election, you have to meet the other side with an understanding statement that you can see where the other side is coming from. For me, I guess I need to make myself try to understand why Uranium is so important to you.

I’ll never get an understanding statement from any FoxNews viewer here. You will always respond to me as if my point of view is invalid and fakenews is feeding what I care about.

That’s the core of the problem that the op is not seeming to understand.

 

This is just asinine.

If you value pragmaticsm and understand that managing the world's largest bueracracy as the head of the executive branch is the most prevelant responsibility of a President, you would understand that someone who doesn't even understand the difference between life and health insurance is a signficantly more catastrophic candidate than someone with nuanced knowledge of geoplotics, constitutional law and how our legislative process actually works.

The mere appearance of US citizens voting in someone unprecedentedly so unqualified for the responsibilities given as POTUS has really wrecked foreign perception of Americans.

Forget about the racism, forget about the **** agenda that is constantly whispered to his ear( he has no agenda or principles, other people tell him what they are).

Just understand this is what Trump answered in regards to nuclear proliferation:
“Look, having nuclear — my uncle was a great professor and scientist and engineer, Dr. John Trump at MIT; good genes, very good genes, OK, very smart, the Wharton School of Finance, very good, very smart — you know, if you’re a conservative Republican, if I were a liberal, if, like, OK, if I ran as a liberal Democrat, they would say I’m one of the smartest people anywhere in the world — it’s true! — but when you’re a conservative Republican they try — oh, do they do a number — that’s why I always start off: Went to Wharton, was a good student, went there, went there, did this, built a fortune — you know I have to give my like credentials all the time, because we’re a little disadvantaged — but you look at the nuclear deal, the thing that really bothers me — it would have been so easy, and it’s not as important as these lives are — nuclear is powerful; my uncle explained that to me many, many years ago, the power and that was 35 years ago; he would explain the power of what’s going to happen and he was right, who would have thought? — but when you look at what’s going on with the four prisoners — now it used to be three, now it’s four — but when it was three and even now, I would have said it’s all in the messenger; fellas, and it is fellas because, you know, they don’t, they haven’t figured that the women are smarter right now than the men, so, you know, it’s gonna take them about another 150 years — but the Persians are great negotiators, the Iranians are great negotiators, so, and they, they just killed, they just killed us.”

^^
That is our president

You will never convince a sane pragmatic individual that Hillary would be equally bad.

Hillary wouldn't make my top 10,000 list of potential presidential candidates.

I would pick literally half of the United States population over Trump for President.

Ipaman, your posts show more intellegence and rationality than Trump. I would choose you as President over Trump. You are seriously underestimating just how over his head he is with this job.

 

Why would you give someone who doesn't even know the difference between life and health insurance a shot at accomplishing an agenda at the highest position in the country?

You do know this man never had an 'agenda'? This is the part I don't understand how you've been duped by. He doesn't have enough nuanced knowledge have an agenda or opinion. The last man to praise him provides him with an agenda.

Notice how he defends all his decision making and policies. It's not through merit but rather how a crowd or someone he believes to have respect amongst the general populace reacts well to it. That's how children and teenagers make decisions. He never had any ideas.

It's so crazy that you think that Trump is more qualified to be president than Hillary. Hillary at the very least would provide a baseline level of stability where foreign nation aren't scratching their head while the most powerful man on the planet has a Twitter war with a man who has nukes and has threatened to use them.

Amazing. Like, this dude was a joke in the 90s people knew he was a scumbag who inherited his dad's 250 million dollar empire. He was the butt end of jokes. Probably why he is so desperate to be seen as a 'genuis' and constantly brags about his ivy league under grad econ degree that he obtained through legacy admissions.