What-about-ism turned on its friggin' head for a change

Be sure to un-mute (lower right of screen) - and watch your blood pressure:

https://twitter.com/nowthisnews/status/1118228314257350657?s=21

Yep, that is a thing of beauty. What's even funnier is, most of the stuff they complained about Obama for wasn't even a tenth of the magnitude of what Trump's doing -- tweeting, golfing, etc.

The standards are completely different, so much that they're actually surreal. Trump's cultists still repeat things like "if you like your doctor you can keep your doctor" to brand Obama as a "liar" (when he was just incorrect, and in a small number of cases), while Trump tells dozens of whoppers far bigger than that every day, and... not a peep.

They whine about highly-fictionalized accounts like "Uranium One" and yet the shrug off Trump agreeing to North Korean ransom demands, or defending Russian espionage. And then they want to be treated as serious people with grown-up arguments.

Basically, anything a Democrat does will be magnified 10,000 times, while anything a Republican does will be dismissed entirely. The what-about-ism is flat-out nuts. "Hey, Dillinger just knocked over another dozen banks!" "So what, Davey stole a cookie."

Couldn't have said any of that better, z. It's all just so un-blanking-believable.

And our unfriendly little forum what-about-ist, who's always supposedly insisting on the same rules for everyone, will almost certainly -- conveniently (and blindly)--ignore all of this.

Glad you approve, Tel.

RealLindaL wrote:Glad you approve, Tel.    

There may be something to the Dems appearing on Fox. Dems on Fox is the only reason I would watch the Shithole network.

Fox News' Libertarian commentator/analyst Judge Andrew Napolitano has actually been getting it pretty right lately.  Hard to believe they actually allow him to speak:

Judge Andrew Napolitano: Did President Trump obstruct justice?

"The president's job is to enforce federal law. If he had ordered its violation to save innocent life or preserve human freedom, he would have a moral defense. But ordering obstruction to save himself from the consequences of his own behavior is unlawful, defenseless and condemnable."