Jonah Goldberg and Ben Shapiro call out the "But Hillary..." response for what it is

[TitanTiger 18,841]

Quote

...Since I’ve been having this ridiculous argument all week, let me skip ahead. Yes, “Crooked Hillary,” Ted Kennedy, and a host of other liberals did bad things. Whether those bad things were analogous to this is highly debatable. But let’s just concede the point for argument’s sake. Let’s also accept the president’s grotesquely cynical and false claim that pretty much anyone in politics would have done the same thing and taken the meeting. (I for one am perfectly happy to concede that Sidney Blumenthal would happily have done equally sleazy things for his Queen-master. But I have every confidence that if some shady Russian cutouts approached, say, James Baker with a similar scheme to “incriminate” Michael Dukakis, he would become a helicopter of fists.) 

But here’s the thing: Who gives a dirty rat’s ass? If you spent years — like I did, by the way — insisting that the Clintons were a corrupt affront to political decency, invoking their venal actions as a moral justification for Team Trump’s actions is the rhetorical equivalent of a remake of Waterworld set entirely in the main vat of a sewage-treatment plant, i.e., the intellectual Mother of Sh** Shows. This is a point Ben Shapiro made well earlier this week (and which I’ve been writing about for two years now). If you want to make the case that Democrats or the media are hypocrites, whataboutism is perfectly valid (and quite fun). But if you want to say that it’s fine for Trump to do things you considered legally and morally outrageous when Hillary Clinton did them, you should either concede that you believe two wrongs make a right or you should apologize for being angry about what Clinton did. And you should be prepared to have no right to complain when the next Democrat gets into power and does the same thing...

http://www.nationalreview.com/g-file/449516/donald-trump-russia-benefit-doubt-now-gone

 

[homersapien 10,932]

  

Trump is saving the Clintons reputation by contrast.

[DKW 86 7,172]

Kudos to both of you. 

In my lil ICE thing on another thread, I was trying to point out that we need Integrity, Character, and Ethics. If we dont have that, then we ultimately have nothing.

Those who pointed out ad naueum everything wrong with the Clintons suddenly dont want to see whats wrong with Trump. You cant have it both ways. If HRC is a sleaze bag, then what is Trump when he supported her for decades? Is Trump a Christian because he needs a saviour or is he just looking for the votes. I get sick to my stomach watching and hearing people tell me Trump is anything but a billionaire playboy reality star...

[Proud Tiger 4,261]

How come some complain about  saying "but Hillary" when they were always saying "but Bush" when Obama was pres.

[TitanTiger 18,841]

5 minutes ago, Proud Tiger said:

How come some complain about  saying "but Hillary" when they were always saying "but Bush" when Obama was pres.

Just can't get beyond your case of whataboutism, can you?

[homersapien 10,932]

1 hour ago, Proud Tiger said:

How come some complain about  saying "but Hillary" when they were always saying "but Bush" when Obama was pres.

Maybe because Bush was actually the president who set the conditions Obama inherited?   

[TitanTiger 18,841]

1 minute ago, homersapien said:

Maybe because Bush was actually the president who set the conditions Obama inherited?   

Eh.  The same principle applies.  Many people would try to deflect criticism of certain actions or tactics by Obama with a "but Bush..." non-rebuttal.  But just like the above, you don't get to rail about how wrong it is for the other side to do something, then defend it when your guy does it with a "what about _____________" reply.  Either you are believe two wrongs make a right or you no longer have any claim to be angry about the other guy doing it in the first place.

Regardless, PT's response pegged the irony meter on "tilt." 

[DKW 86 7,172]

On 7/18/2017 at 0:59 PM, TitanTiger said:

Eh.  The same principle applies.  Many people would try to deflect criticism of certain actions or tactics by Obama with a "but Bush..." non-rebuttal.  But just like the above, you don't get to rail about how wrong it is for the other side to do something, then defend it when your guy does it with a "what about _____________" reply.  Either you are believe two wrongs make a right or you no longer have any claim to be angry about the other guy doing it in the first place.

Regardless, PT's response pegged the irony meter on "tilt." 

Brother, you are making too much sense and being too logical. 

[homersapien 10,932]

I think there is a legitimate use of references to the previous president for the reasons stated, as long as the argument is rational.  I don't see any problems with Trump supporters "blaiming" Obama for anything he did, as long as they can make a rational argument for it (and good luck with that).  

For example, if Trumpettes want to argue Obama "hung America out to dry" with the Iranian nuclear agreement, then have at it.  It's an illogical and irrational argument, but that's my opinion.

The problem is when such references are used habitually as a diversion or excuse for what Trump does. Comparing Hillary's moral transgressions in no way excuses Trump for his. 

 

[DKW 86 7,172]

On 7/19/2017 at 8:45 PM, homersapien said:

Comparing Hillary's moral transgressions in no way excuses Trump for his. 

Nor does his excuse hers. I think that was the whole point. If one person does an immoral or illegal act, that should never be used to justify another person's immoral or illegal act. The one intensely irritating thing about this election was hearing the same people that railed on the Clintons for 2 decades turning a blind eye to Trump. "Bill was a sorry skirt chaser that couldnt keep it in his pants." Newsflash: SO WAS TRUMP. If you are going to criticize WJC, then by all means tear Trump a new one too. You cant justify by comparing each candidate. If you claim to be on the moral high ground, act like it even when it is really inconvenient. I had folks, Religious-Pious Folks, telling me that Trump was "born again." I just shook my head and asked a few questions that made them terribly uncomfortable. I dont know for sure, but Trump getting religion seemed awfully convenient and well timed to me. Color me jaded.

[alexava 6,946]

I lost respect for a lot of so called Christians this past fall.