The big problem is not Trump. It is "Trumpism"

[*bfine32*]

(05-06-2019, 03:16 PM)Dill Wrote: Not just Trump, but Trump voters as well. Posts #13, #37, and #55 stand out in this regard.

Central to your defense are two claims:

1. of moral/ethical equivalence between Hillary and Trump, and

2. the incredible claim that those who voted for the repeatedly bankrupted Birther-in-chief were "no worse" in their judgment than those who voted for the Secretary of State who got China and India committed to the Copenhagen Accord--a claim you made even before we were separating ethics from competence.

If your claim now is that you are just attacking Hillary, not defending Trump, that also rests upon more equivocation.  It's not like YOU just started this thread to bash Hillary and then SOMEONE ELSE introduced the topic of Trump.  No, this thread is about TRUMPISM, and your Hillary claims are introduced to water down and neutralize the assessment of Trump and Trumpism.

THAT's how an attack on Hillary becomes a defense of Trump.

In repeating Fox talking points about Hillary, you dismiss the kind of analytical framework which would compare apples with apples using accurate information.

Thus, family to family, the P-GrabbingTrump, who cheated on three wives and paid off a pornstar with his personal "fixer" and arranged to kill other negative stories, has no less integrity than Hillary, who is "reported" to have called a woman who slept with his husband a "bimbo" (meaning she is careful NOT to make public statements about such matters). And decided to stay with Bill.

Works out the same way if the terms of comparison are financial history or "lies," and gets worse when we get to competence, comparing them on statecraft and debate performance.

To repeat, again, to defend Trump, you must lower standards of evidence, deflect, equivocate and dismiss logical/analytical comparison.  You must breakdown all the means and tools for helping voters decide who is likely to make a competent president--and who is not.  Pretend it all really comes down to a hunch.

Let me quote the posts you identified as defending Trump:

Quote:The issue is that at the end of the day there were 2 viable candidates. It's too easy to sit on a pedestal and associate those that voted for one with everything that is wrong with that candidate, while ignoring the warts on the other. The truth is the vast majority that voted for Trump are no "worse" than those that did not. It's just the Left have to make themselves feel more enlightened.

Quote:If you want to set the guilt standard as Found guilty by an investigation. I think we can consider both "clean" but otherwise:

Quote:Her reported actions toward women accusing her husband of sexual harassment/rape.


Taking "sniper fire" in Bosnia


Her processing classified government documents from a personal server the saying she didn't know she couldn't


Having 3,000ish emails deleted from her personal computer after it had been supeanoed


Whitewater


Travelgate


Telling the public Benghazi was impulsive act while emailing her daughter and telling her it was a planned Al Quida plot


The Clinton foundation


These are but a few. The point is that you are a hypocrite if you say you "prize ethical conduct" and that's the reason you voted for Hills.


There may be other reasons one selected Hills over Trump but GTFO if you try to claim it was because of each's ethical conduct

Quote:I haven't dismissed Trump's behavior or just like you I would award one morality points over the other. I have also stated reasons why it's a "wash" at best. Let's just end with you awarding Hills morality points. You can live with it after all.

Anyone can plainly see there was 0 attempt at "defending Trump". There's a reason both you and hollo failing when trying to do so. And you know why that was? Because there was no defending of Trump. But you did identify the true problem You chose to point the finger at me while displaying the true problem and that is "if you're not with us in our mission of hate, you're against us"


I do like how you moved the goalpost from defending Trump to defending Trump supporters. You want to know why you did that? Because that is the actual point of the thread and is exactly what I said in the first post you referred to.


Just look at some of the rhetoric thrown around in this post and the attempts to outwardly hate one candidate:


"Tossing out Checks and Balances" "Prize moral Character".. Let me just leave you with a little of the good boo:


You hypocrite! First, remove the beam out of your own eye, and then you can see clearly to remove the speck out of your brother's eye.