US House Speaker Announces Formal Impeachment Inquiry

[Cope]

The whataboutisms are real, keep cycling until something sticks. Just try not to lie about HRC next time.

As I said, some serious Basil vibes are flowing now.

I see you don't know what whataboutism means.

[Heathen Hammer]

The whataboutisms are real, keep cycling until something sticks. Just try not to lie about HRC next time.

As I said, some serious Basil vibes are flowing now.

Do you know what the "whataboutism" even means? You should probably look up meaning of a term before using it...

[The spartan]

I see you don't know what whataboutism means.

I am sorry, what does Joe Biden or his son have to do with your claim about HRC having Trump investigated in her capacity as Secretary of State?

You went with narrative about HRC in an attempt to make it seem as if people upset about what Trump did were hypocrites. The narrative you were pitching about HRC was BS, so you immediately switch to a different narrative without even acknowledging your previous dishonest statement. I could condense your post down to "Ok, well then what about Joe Biden and his misdeeds! You were ok with that but not ok with what Trump did?!"

That is literally tu quoque logic, no?

Do you know what the "whataboutism" even means? You should probably look up meaning of a term before using it...

Sure do, bud:

Whataboutism, also known as whataboutery, is a variant of the tu quoque logical fallacy that attempts to discredit an opponent's position by charging them with hypocrisy without directly refuting or disproving their argument

In a thread about the POTUS having inappropriate correspondence with another nation's president, bringing up the misdeeds of a political opponent (originally HRC in the post I responded to, then switched to Biden) in order to paint people complaining about Trump as hypocrites seems like a textbook example. Epic Fail could be completely correct about everything he claimed about HRC and Biden (he's not) and it wouldn't have anything directly to do with Trump's impropriety.

[Love Mountain]

You can post all the liberal press accounts that you like; I couldn't care less what the subjective findings of WaPo, CNN, the NYT or Politi"fact" are. My point is not that Shokin is telling the truth or that Biden was lying: it's that hard evidence is starting to emerge which justifies the President merely asking Zelensky to look into Biden's dealings in Ukraine. Unless you can produce evidence (which you can't) that Trump actively sought to coerce Zelensky into providing him with fabricated or misleading evidence about Biden then I'm simply not interested. Let the circus continue.

We just went over why your "hard evidence" is flawed. As the saga continues, it's only continuing to reveal more White House obstructionism and more disturbing actions taken by the administration. The pile of Trump's just keeps getting stacked higher.

[Gaidin]

I'm curious. Why do whataboutisms regarding Biden in this thread instead of just making a whole new thread dedicated to him. Trump certainly is making enough noise about him that surely you can find enough modern sources dedicated to the political pressure he put on Ukraine as Vice President?

It's nothing but a red herring in this thread though.

Of course, people bringing up Biden can just admit they want to dishonestly distract from the impeachment.

[Cope]

I am sorry, what does Joe Biden or his son have to do with your claim about HRC having Trump investigated in her capacity as Secretary of State?

You went with narrative about HRC in an attempt to make it seem as if people upset about what Trump did were hypocrites. The narrative you were pitching about HRC was BS so you immediately switch to a different narrative without even acknowledging your previous dishonest statement. I could condense your post down to "Ok, well then what about Joe Biden and his misdeeds! You were ok with that but not ok with what Trump did?!"

That is literally tu quoque logic, no?

No.

I couldn't care less that Clinton sought to dig up dirt on Trump. I used it as an example to show that most of the people now purporting to be shocked by the President's conversation with Zelensky were completely disinterested when the Clinton campaign sought to use a foreign agent working through Russian contacts to discredit a political rival. The reason Biden was brought up is because you suggested that Trump had no legitimate reason for wanting Zelensky to look into Biden's involvement in the removal of Shokin even though there is clear evidence that he did.

There is no "whataboutism".

[Gaidin]

I'm not sure you know what a foreign agent is.

[The spartan]

I couldn't care less that Clinton sought to dig up dirt on Trump.

I'm not the one to bring it up, you did.

I used it as an example to show that most of the people now purporting to be shocked by the President's conversation with Zelensky were completely disinterested when the Clinton campaign sought to use a foreign agent working through Russian contacts to discredit a political rival.

Right, that is a whataboutism.

tu quoque logical fallacy that attempts to discredit an opponent's position by charging them with hypocrisy without directly refuting or disproving their argument

You are just claiming people are hypocrites because of their reactions to another event. Though, as said previously, I don't think a private citizens purchasing the research services of another (if foreign) private individual is that similar to the POTUS asking for personal political assistance from the President of an allied nation.

The reason Biden was brought up is because you suggested that Trump had no legitimate reason for wanting Zelensky to look into Biden's involvement in the removal of Shokin even though there is clear evidence that he did.

When did I suggest that? More importantly, what does that have to do with Trump's impropriety? Someone else doing something illegal isn't usually a good defense for doing something illegal yourself. You either think that the POTUS can ask personal political favors from foreign leaders, or you don't. There is no qualified "he is allowed to do this only if he is right", clause.

There is no "whataboutism".

Your point is literally that people who are upset at Trump for this are hypocrites because there was another event (that you claim is similar) that they didn't get as upset at, right? How is that not a whataboutism?

[Cope]

I'm not the one to bring it up, you did.

And?

Right, that is a whataboutism.

No it isn't. Whataboutism is where you seek to justify, dismiss or deflect from one negative behaviour by pointing to another. Since I don't believe that the behaviour of the Clinton campaign in seeking to dig up dirt on Trump or the president's attempts to have Zelensky look into the dealings of a previous administration are anything to get upset over, my point is not an example of whataboutism.

You are just claiming people are hypocrites because of their reactions to another event.

Accusing people of hypocrisy doesn't automatically mean that you're engaging in whataboutery.

Though, as said previously, I don't think a private citizens purchasing the research services of another (if foreign) private individual is that similar to the POTUS asking for personal political assistance from the President of an allied nation.

When did I suggest that? More importantly, what does that have to do with Trump's impropriety? Someone else doing something illegal isn't usually a good defense for doing something illegal yourself. You either think that the POTUS can ask personal political favors from foreign leaders, or you don't. There is no qualified "he is allowed to do this only if he is right", clause.

I'm not sure you understand the nature of the "scandal" (which goes someway to proving how contrived it is). If Trump wanted Biden's Ukrainian activities to be investigated on the basis of an evidenced belief that Biden had actually behaved improperly then his request wouldn't be tantamount to "personal political assistance". As to the point about legality, that would only be relevant if Trump had sought to blackmail or bribe Zelensky. There is absolutely no evidence of this having occurred.

Your point is literally that people who are upset at Trump for this are hypocrites because there was another event (that you claim is similar) that they didn't get as upset at, right? How is that not a whataboutism?

Because I don't think that either behaviour/action was wrong in the first place.

[The spartan]

And?

You were wrong, HRC did not fund a foreign agent to work through Russian contacts when she was Secretary of State.

No it isn't. Whataboutism is where you seek to justify, dismiss or deflect from one negative behaviour by pointing to another. Since I don't believe that the behaviour of the Clinton campaign in seeking to dig up dirt on Trump or the president's attempts to have Zelensky look into the dealings of a previous administration are anything to get upset over, my point is not an example of whataboutism.

I can link the definition again if you want:

Whataboutism, also known as whataboutery, is a variant of the tu quoque logical fallacy that attempts to discredit an opponent's position by charging them with hypocrisy without directly refuting or disproving their argument

You are trying to discredit opponents (effectively defending Trump here) by saying they are reacting to this event with Trump in a way they did not react to a comparable (in your opinion) event involving someone "on their side". If you want to make the argument that "Trump didn't do anything wrong here," then make that argument. But given the post I first responded to, I am pretty sure you are using red herring by bringing up unrelated events "from the other side". As Gaidin said, if you want to talk about HRC or Biden's impropriety, go discuss that in a thread about that. Otherwise you are coming off as using whataboutisms, especially in bringing up HRC who otherwise has nothing to do with this.

Accusing people of hypocrisy doesn't automatically mean that you're engaging in whataboutery.

Never said it did, I said that you are discrediting opponents by calling them hypocrites because of how you think they didn't get upset at a "similar" even perpetrated by "their side".

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

When she was Secretary of State, HRC funded a foreign agent to work through Russian contacts to to dig up and fabricate evidence against Trump. This did not bother the Democrats either. Then again, I don't know why anyone still expects any sort of moral or intellectual consistency in these propaganda wars.

-post 123

"They are mad at our side did this? Well, their side did that and they weren't mad then!" is like, the classic whataboutism.

I'm not sure you understand the nature of the "scandal" (which goes someway to proving how contrived it is). If Trump wanted Biden's Ukrainian activities to be investigated on the basis of an evidenced belief that Biden had actually behaved improperly then his request wouldn't be tantamount to "personal political assistance". As to the point about legality, that would only be relevant if Trump had sought to blackmail or bribe Zelensky. There is absolutely no evidence of this having occurred.

If you want to make a separate argument about how you don't think Trump did anything wrong here, by all means make that argument. I just don't know how bringing up dishonest depictions of HRC and throwing around whataboutisms is part of that argument.

Because I don't think that either behaviour/action was wrong in the first place.

Sure, the POTUS frequently calls up foreign leaders and ask them about focusing on legal cases against individuals they got going on and report back to their AG, and Trump just happened to pick an accusation against Biden and his son. Nothing at all to do with Biden being the front-runner of his potential opposing candidate from the presidency. *wink wink* *nudge nudge*

[Heathen Hammer]

I'm curious. Why do whataboutisms regarding Biden in this thread instead of just making a whole new thread dedicated to him. Trump certainly is making enough noise about him that surely you can find enough modern sources dedicated to the political pressure he put on Ukraine as Vice President?

It's nothing but a red herring in this thread though.

Of course, people bringing up Biden can just admit they want to dishonestly distract from the impeachment.

I don't think "whataboutism" means what you think it means. Obviously Biden's corrupt adventures in Ukraine have a lot to do with inquiry itself, so it seems you are just upset that we are discussing side of the story that makes the side you support look bad.
Overall, it looks like the whole thing is just a smokescreen to distract public from actual corruption of Biden and his son. Allegations of which, Quid Pro Joe himself confirmed as it was recorded.

[Love Mountain]

I don't think "whataboutism" means what you think it means. Obviously Biden's corrupt adventures in Ukraine have a lot to do with inquiry itself, so it seems you are just upset that we are discussing side of the story that makes the side you support look bad.
Overall, it looks like the whole thing is just a smokescreen to distract public from actual corruption of Biden and his son. Allegations of which, Quid Pro Joe himself confirmed as it was recorded.

"What about Biden"

[Cope]

You were wrong, HRC did not fund a foreign agent to work through Russian contacts when she was Secretary of State.

Ah yes, my mistake; she was no longer Secretary of State in 2013. It's just the foreign agent, Russian contacts and digging up dirt part which is true.

You are trying to discredit opponents (effectively defending Trump here) by saying they are reacting to this event with Trump in a way they did not react to a comparable (in your opinion) event involving someone "on their side". If you want to make the argument that "Trump didn't do anything wrong here," then make that argument. But given the post I first responded to, I am pretty sure you are using red herring by bringing up unrelated events "from the other side". As Gaidin said, if you want to talk about HRC or Biden's impropriety, go discuss that in a thread about that. Otherwise you are coming off as using whataboutisms, especially in bringing up HRC who otherwise has nothing to do with this.

1. I have made the argument that Trump didn't do anything wrong.
2. Biden's alleged impropriety is directly related to this incident.

Never said it did, I said that you are discrediting opponents by calling them hypocrites because of how you think they didn't get upset at a "similar" even perpetrated by "their side".

I've already "discredited" the liberal view independent of the Clinton claims.

"They are mad at our side did this? Well, there side did that and they weren't mad then!" is like, the classic whataboutism.

No. Again, you're ignoring all of my other posts on the matter and assuming that I think either Clinton's or Trump's behaviour was improper in the first place - which I don't. Pointing out a double standard is only tantamount to whataboutery if you're using it to excuse or distract from some other unethical action/behaviour (ie. it's your only point).

If you want to make a separate argument about how you don't think Trump did anything wrong here, by all means make that argument. I just don't know how bringing up dishonest depictions of HRC and throwing around whataboutisms is part of that argument.

I have already made that argument.

Sure, the POTUS usually calls up foreign leaders and ask them about legal cases against individuals they got going on, and Trump just happened to pick an accusation against Biden and his son. Nothing at all to do with Biden being the front-runner of his potential opposing candidate from the presidency. *wink wink* *nudge nudge*

I don't care that the president asked Zelensky to look into Biden; he has a right to make such a request even if it would benefit him personally were any wrongdoing on Biden's part to be found. Now if Trump had sought to coerce or bribe Zelensky that would be a different story, but I have seen no evidence of that.

[Aexodus]

Trump asking Zelensky to investigate Biden is totally out of order and you know it epic. It’s no coincidence the election is next year, and Biden is Trump’s potential rival for the presidency.

[Cope]

Trump asking Zelensky to investigate Biden is totally out of order and you know it epic. It’s no coincidence the election is next year, and Biden is Trump’s potential rival for the presidency.

The sophistication of this clearly choreographed assault - which has involved coordination between the intelligence community, the Democratic party and the Anglo-Saxon press (which we've watched morph into a propaganda arm of the liberal establishment) - worries me far more than an irrelevant phone call. So no, I couldn't care less that Trump asked Zelensky to look into Biden.

[Love Mountain]

The sophistication of this clearly choreographed assault - which has involved coordination between the intelligence community, the Democratic party and the Anglo-Saxon press (which we've watched morph into a propaganda arm of the liberal establishment) - worries me far more than an irrelevant phone call. So no, I couldn't care less that Trump asked Zelensky to look into Biden.

Weak. Might as well add a tin foil hat to your avatar. Had Trump and the Republican establishment not done anything worthy of outrage, there wouldn’t be so much coverage in the media.

[Cope]

Weak. Might as well add a tin foil hat to your avatar. Had Trump and the Republican establishment not done anything worthy of outrage, there wouldn’t be so much coverage in the media.

*Shrug* You've been pretty open about the contempt you have for democracy and voters who disagree with you, so you'll forgive me for also not caring what you think.

[Love Mountain]

*Shrug* You've been pretty open about the contempt you have for democracy and voters who disagree with you, so you'll forgive me for also not caring what you think.

Sure, but just to clarify for the rest of us, you think the Anglo-Saxon media, the Democratic Party, and the intelligence community are all united in a conspiracy against Donald Trump? Or perhaps not in a conspiracy, but all three are accomplices against President Trump and the Republican party?

[Aexodus]

The sophistication of this clearly choreographed assault - which has involved coordination between the intelligence community, the Democratic party and the Anglo-Saxon press (which we've watched morph into a propaganda arm of the liberal establishment) - worries me far more than an irrelevant phone call. So no, I couldn't care less that Trump asked Zelensky to look into Biden.

This is whataboutery.

[Gaidin]

I don't think "whataboutism" means what you think it means. Obviously Biden's corrupt adventures in Ukraine have a lot to do with inquiry itself, so it seems you are just upset that we are discussing side of the story that makes the side you support look bad.
Overall, it looks like the whole thing is just a smokescreen to distract public from actual corruption of Biden and his son. Allegations of which, Quid Pro Joe himself confirmed as it was recorded.

AG Barr can be a good lapdog and charge Biden whenever they're ready. Until then, you've really got nothing to stand on.