Trump mocks Elizabeth Warren’s heritage AND #metoo

[Dill]

(02-06-2019, 01:44 PM)hollodero Wrote: Yeah, it is, sure. But so is accusing said people of whataboutism and then using said whataboutism oneself. And while I agree that Trump is way, way, way worse with his lieing, he can't be an excuse, or work as a relativization, for those that rightfully slammed him for it.

From the outside, it's a bit tough to determine who's more hypocritical when people start pointing to Trump to defend Warren.

I agree that a reference to Trump should not relativize a Warren lie, as in make it ok--but if one digs up her lie in hopes of diminishing her candidacy in an election, at some point, the question of scale and degree has to arise. 

If some voters embrace the mother of all flat-out liars, then identify a possible-lie-depending-on-how-you-look-at-it told by said mother's political opponent as if lies were now disqualifying or equivalating--it's ok to make the double standard an issue, isn't it? 

Further, people who claim to support neither Trump nor Warren can still uphold that double standard if they keep the focus on Warren and never rise to the larger question of fitness for office, as it applies to all candidates, including the current officeholder.

Seems to me that is what the discussion ought to be about, even if the starting point is Warren's one lie-if-you-look-at-it-the-right-way. We are only talking about politicians' lies because we are evaluating the character of actual leaders and their fitness to lead.  Fine if people who examine Warren's claims dig up whatever dirt they can, but whatever they find has to be eventually assessed in that larger context, in which comparison with other candidates' dirt is neither whataboutism nor bothsidesism, nor relativizing one or the other.