To put them in place Obama had to claim Venezuela was a threat to the United States. Even a habitual liar as gifted as Obama had to struggle with that one.
And meanwhile, we're still merrily selling tens of billions in weapons to Saudi Arabia at a time. You know, the country where almost all the 911 hijackers were actually from, and a sponsor of jihadist groups across the middle east.
And now let me fix those terms. You're not even a Katy Perry fan but a child-molesting Catholic priest is attacking her for promoting homosexuality. Perry's really not your thing, but you ask the priest how he can throw stones at "kissed a girl" when he's got a long track record of child molestation.
The priest responds by screaming "whataboutery" and claiming victory. You ask the priest if he could at least take his dick out of that 12 year old's ass while he's talking. He then starts screaming "to quoque" and stomping his feet in a hissy. America == that priest.
The problem here is probalby your own narrow mind. When someone attacks your beloved Russia you must go on the defence.
Your problems is that you're engaging in a base logical fallacy, and speaking to someone who has a functioning bullshit detector. I called out Birthers for doing the same thing Russiagaters are doing now - engaging in fact-free hysterics to take down a politician they didn't like. That doesn't mean I support Obama's persecution of whisteblowers or starting wars without authorization from Congress.
Iraq war skeptics were also smeared as Saddam supporters back in 2002. SSDD.
You see, one quality if the Western philosophy is that it is capable of self criticism.
Then the United States would be paying more attention to the fact that it has the largest prison population in the world when accusing countries from China to Iran of being authoritarian states.
So you're willfully obtuse then, ok. I'll spell out the difference for you. Let's say you're a a concert and you're getting 10% of your normal bandwidth on your smartphone - because the available spectrum is filled with people using Snapchat, Instagram, livesteaming to Facebook, etc. That makes sense.
Now compare that to you getting 10% of your normal bandwidth, not because there are a high number of users stressing the system, but because an AT&T algorithm has decided you've used too much this month and is throttling your connection. See why your grumbling about physics is not relevant to the subject at hand?
I was a military brat for 18 years and then served for 8 myself.
So you're the offspring of an imperial occupier who decided to go into the family business. None of the bases you lived on as a child or served on as an adult were for the defense of your own country, which hasn't had a real invasion since 1812. It was all for the American empire - and you want your kids to keep up the tradition. Charming.
The American psyche is one of "independence", "pulling one's self up by one's own bootstraps", etc.
That's what capitalists will tell you so they can keep 90% of your labor for themselves, and take your retirement funds as seed money through 401k's.
They rely on their parents more, well into their late 20s and early 30s, something European peers do not.
Probably because those peers live in civilized countries where health care and higher education were free-to-use.
Google was a company embedded with deep state spying from the beginning, and is a megacorp now. Which means its inherently right-wing, their stupid decision here aside.
This is the problem with selective polling and ad hoc reasoning. Many Americans can't name a single Supreme Court justice, why would you expect them to know female or male tech leaders.
Meanwhile, we collectively accept FUD on things we are less familiar with, like radiation/nuclear power
You wish it was FUD. Nuclear power is completely unjustifiable based on cost alone. It costs far too much to build, maintain, decommission and deal with the waste for thousands of years compared to just about any other alternative under the sun.
Hmm, sounds like denialist hand waiving. You know, like the line that in the 70's all the scientists were worried about a new ice age when that's total crap.
in response the to habit of the Soviet propaganda machine over past decades to respond to any accusation of human rights violations by pointing, for example, to the lack of civil rights for black Americans
Western propaganda about propaganda. The United States only cares about civil rights abroad when it can use it as a weapon against people it doesn't like. And you can fill an encyclopedia set of abuses it's committed at home, much less abroad. That's inconvenient for American Exceptionalists, which is why you try to shut down any such conversation with bleating about "whatabboutery".
So yeah, you try to use human rights as a political football, expect to have that shit thrown right back in your face where it belongs.
The word Whataboutery itself is propaganda, used by hypocrites to deflect from their hypocrisy.
You are growing weaker by the comment.
More whining and bitching but it doesn't change your hypocrisy. And waiving around tu quoque doesn't change the fact that you are engaging in propaganda when you attack other countries for XYZ but protest that it's just not faaaaair when anyone points out that you not only do XYZ as well, but on an infinitely larger scale.
Next you'll tell me the mafia isn't real. Or that Paul Manafort is a figment of my imagination.
Or you could stop waiving those hands for five seconds and post some evidence. If, say, I'm arguing with an Obamabot who insists 44 had the greatest intentions but was held back by a Republican Congress, I will bury his dumb ass with facts and citations on how the worst policies from the Obama Administration came from Obama himself, not Republicans.
If you Russiagaters weren't completely full of it, you would come into any discussion armed with hard facts and citations. You don't because you can't. All you have is a classic Gish Gallop:
The term Gish gallop, named after a Young Earth creationist who was notoriously fond of employing it, refers to a fallacious debate tactic in which a bunch of individually weak arguments are strung together in rapid-fire succession in order to create the illusion of a solid argument and overwhelm the opposition's ability to refute them all in the time allotted.
And that's why you're in the same club as Birthers, Chem Trailers, and Lunar Conspiracy nuts. Because you have as much evidence for your crackpot ideas as they do.
as forensic analysis of the email thefts of the dems
You mean Crowdstrike that cites blog posts as evidence? Their analysis isn't fit to be toilet paper. And have you ever noticed that Mueller has never bother to subpoena the DNC servers for a proper FBI investigation, even though the alleged hacking of said servers is the entire foundation for Russiagate?
Either this was a farce of an investigation from day one, or Mueller is too incompetent to wipe his own ass, much less lead an investigation of a sitting president. Pick one.
ahahahaha, because the alternative to her doesn't lie AT ALL!
Irrelevant. What Trump does or does not do does nothing to change the worth of Hillary's actions. It's not like you're going to give Trump a pass on some stupid lie he's told just because dumbass Hillary credited the Reagan's for their AIDS activism.
Care to try again, without the butthurt partisan drivel?
Making it all about some fallacious hypocrisy that does not really exist.
Hypocrisy that doesn't exist? Now you're just engaging in willful dumbfuckery. The dozens of democracies overthrown by the United States alone makes you a liar of Biblical proportions.
It's very easy to pretend that there's no scandal if you pretend the scandal is something other than what it is.
1) There is no scandal
2) Russiagaters keep moving the goalposts. First it was hacking the DNC servers, then it was hacking electric grids, then it was spreading "discord" amongst Black Lives Matter activists. That minorities live in a murderous police state was a big shocker to them until Russia said it was happening.
The Mueller investigation is on-going.
With zero probable suspison of any Russian hacking or colluding with Trump to do so. And he's never bothered to subpoena the DNC servers, the alleged hacking of which is only the foundation for the entire Russiagate narrative. Which either means this "investigation" was a farce from day one, or Mueller is so incompetent he couldn't find his ass with both hands and a couple of interns. Pick one.
a very real concern given he has a reputation for telling people things and then denying he said them afterwards
The available evidence that's been made public suggests some degree of collusion took place
Not even remotely close. This is one of the many plot holes with Russiagate - how is it that Putin would be so clever to see that a failed businessman, racist, sexist, WWE character could be president years in advance - yet at the same time was dumb enough to collude with someone as dumb as Trump or any of his equally dumb inner circle?
Trump has committed numerous impeachable offenses since gaining office.
Trump could kill and eat a human baby on the White House lawn - and it wouldn't change the fact that Russiagate is the dumbest and most baseless conspiracy theory of all time.
it's fairly obvious Putin has tried to influence the election
Plot hole #3,478 of Russiagate: why would Putin try to influence an American election between two parties that have both been virulently anti-Russian for over a hundred years. It's like accusing MLK of trying to swing a primary election between George Wallace and Strom Thurmond in the 50's. It's just asinine on its face when both sides hate your guts.
So sit tight, and quit it with the partisanship. If you care about America, you'll want Mueller to do his job.
When your grandkids ask you how anyone could possibly believe a story with more plot holes than Chem Trailers, are you going to get red in the face and stay quiet, or fess up?
Including multiple individuals in senior campaign and administration positions of our current president? And many of them are cooperating, which generally suggests they are targeting someone higher up the chain-of-command - which is pretty tough to do when you already have the campaign manager and deputy campaign manager snared.
Again - are you paying attention? Even the Russian indictments have nothing to do with hacking election systems and even the DOJ says they had no impact on the election. Probably because they're Twitter farms looking to make money from clickbait and ad revenue - similar business model to sites like Huffington Post or Drudge.
And even if Putin himself came over and rigged some Diebold machines, if there was no collusion with the Trump campaign, there is no Russiagate. That's one of the many plot holes in your dipshit conspiracy theory - if Putin was crafty enough to know years in advance that a failed businessmen and WWE character could win the presidency, why would he be so stupid as to collude with someone as stupid as Trump?
And you're wondering why the attention is there rather than on a partisan youtube video that makes unfounded claims?
The makers of the Youtube video backs up their claims, unlike deranged partisan Russiagaters. Is there a UK company that brags about changing elections in America? Yes, yes there is. So what's your point again?
This a company that has bragged about subverting American elections - but they're based in the U.K., so don't expect to see Democrats or Rachael Maddow freaking out about them 24/7 for the next two years or more.
Really? I don't think more than half the reasons she lost were her own doing.
Really? So who forced her to:
Lie about being shot at in Bosnia Smear black and brown kids as Superpredators Pick a right-wing pro-life running mate Be a homophobe until the Supreme Court legalized gay marraige Be an incompetent neocon warmonger Not bother to campaign in the Rust Belt states that went for Trump Rig the Democratic primary Take hundreds of thousands from dirty banks as she was running for president
And so on. Hillary is rare among candidates in that the more she campaigned, the less people like her. Because she was a complete trainwreck of incompetence.
If you are being honest though you will also have to acknowledge the fact that she won the popular vote by a huge margin.
And as long as we're being honest, you know there's no such thing as a popular vote for president in the United States. Millions of people stay home or vote third party because they know full well their state is going for one party or the other. If everyone's vote actually counts, both candidates would have actually run completely different campaigns with completely different outcomes. Democrats in Texas would have a reason to go to the polls as well as Republicans in California.
Not when it's the same subject, and you're pointing out double standards and hypocrisy. As is usually the case, the people breaking out the "W" word are the real tools in the conversation.
It's merely a new label for the fallacy, a subspecies of argumentum ad hominem, traditionally known as the tu quoque fallacy. It remains a fallacy no matter who calls it or by what name they call it.
You're deflecting and hand waiving.
The putative wrongdoing of a speaker is no answer to that speaker's accusations of wrongdoing.
It is when the speaker is completely and utterly full of shit. And you'd be doing the same damn thing if it was a speaker you disagreed with - hypocrite.
Any particular wrong doing by other parties is a separate question
But it's going to be a part of the same conversation, a fact you're just going to have to deal with.
That sounds nice and fine, but sadly it's 100% wrong.
100% projection. The word Whataboutery itself is propaganda, used by hypocrites to deflect from their hypocrisy. Like all the whining, bitching and moaning about Trump's supposed collusion with foreign intelligence agents, when the Hillary campaign not only did that in fact, but they paid for it.
None of which have anything to do with Russia changing the results on voting machines or colluding with Trump.
I don't think "falling apart" means what you think it means.
Oh, but it does. See above. The rest of your post is a classic Gish Gallop:
The term Gish gallop refers to a fallacious debate tactic in which one barrages one's opposition with a deluge of individually weak arguments which take far too long to debunk individually in a way that sustains the audience's interest. This is all Russiagate amounts to. When Russiagaters tell you that there's "too much smoke for there not to be fire", they are unwittingly telling you "I've been won over by a Gish gallop fallacy." Every single aspect of their argument can be easily debunked without exception, but since there's so much of it and since pundits are assuring them of its reality so confidently, they believe.
Every few weeks there's some major new "bombshell" revelation which Russiagaters get all excited about, only to have people read the actual information in the "bombshell" and find out it's not actually anything incriminating or particularly remarkable. Take all those "bombshells" together, though, and you create the illusion of something real. That's all this nonsense is.
It has been pretty well established that the Russians waged a psychological warfare campaign in the 2016 election
As well established as the ideas that:
Moon landings were faked
Clinton's ordered a hit on Vince Foster
Obama is a Kenyan-born muslim
The CIA puts mind-controlling drugs in jet fuel
And so on. Russiagaters have exactly the same amount of evidence as all those other whackjob conspiracy theorists: none.
It hasn't been made clear yet what Trump's role himself in all of this is, but his behavior has been, in the parlance of our times, acting guilty as all hell.
Uh, no. His behavior is the same as its always been: a loudmouthed game show host, WWE character who has diarrhea of the mouth. Doesn't make him a Putin puppet.
A private firm used computers and access to social networks to learn about people's opinions on various political matters. What's the crime in that?.. Why would this even be unethical, much less illegal?
It's not - but it's everything that Russiagaters have been whining about for over a year and a half. A foreign company openly bragging about changing American elections - but the company is based in the U.K., not Russia, so the media and Stepford Democrats DGAF.
Slashdot Mirror
To put them in place Obama had to claim Venezuela was a threat to the United States. Even a habitual liar as gifted as Obama had to struggle with that one.
And meanwhile, we're still merrily selling tens of billions in weapons to Saudi Arabia at a time. You know, the country where almost all the 911 hijackers were actually from, and a sponsor of jihadist groups across the middle east.
And now let me fix those terms. You're not even a Katy Perry fan but a child-molesting Catholic priest is attacking her for promoting homosexuality. Perry's really not your thing, but you ask the priest how he can throw stones at "kissed a girl" when he's got a long track record of child molestation.
The priest responds by screaming "whataboutery" and claiming victory. You ask the priest if he could at least take his dick out of that 12 year old's ass while he's talking. He then starts screaming "to quoque" and stomping his feet in a hissy. America == that priest.
Your problems is that you're engaging in a base logical fallacy, and speaking to someone who has a functioning bullshit detector. I called out Birthers for doing the same thing Russiagaters are doing now - engaging in fact-free hysterics to take down a politician they didn't like. That doesn't mean I support Obama's persecution of whisteblowers or starting wars without authorization from Congress.
Iraq war skeptics were also smeared as Saddam supporters back in 2002. SSDD.
Then the United States would be paying more attention to the fact that it has the largest prison population in the world when accusing countries from China to Iran of being authoritarian states.
So you're willfully obtuse then, ok. I'll spell out the difference for you. Let's say you're a a concert and you're getting 10% of your normal bandwidth on your smartphone - because the available spectrum is filled with people using Snapchat, Instagram, livesteaming to Facebook, etc. That makes sense.
Now compare that to you getting 10% of your normal bandwidth, not because there are a high number of users stressing the system, but because an AT&T algorithm has decided you've used too much this month and is throttling your connection. See why your grumbling about physics is not relevant to the subject at hand?
So you're the offspring of an imperial occupier who decided to go into the family business. None of the bases you lived on as a child or served on as an adult were for the defense of your own country, which hasn't had a real invasion since 1812. It was all for the American empire - and you want your kids to keep up the tradition. Charming.
That's what capitalists will tell you so they can keep 90% of your labor for themselves, and take your retirement funds as seed money through 401k's.
Probably because those peers live in civilized countries where health care and higher education were free-to-use.
Google was a company embedded with deep state spying from the beginning, and is a megacorp now. Which means its inherently right-wing, their stupid decision here aside.
This is the problem with selective polling and ad hoc reasoning. Many Americans can't name a single Supreme Court justice, why would you expect them to know female or male tech leaders.
You wish it was FUD. Nuclear power is completely unjustifiable based on cost alone. It costs far too much to build, maintain, decommission and deal with the waste for thousands of years compared to just about any other alternative under the sun.
Hmm, sounds like denialist hand waiving. You know, like the line that in the 70's all the scientists were worried about a new ice age when that's total crap.
FTFY
Western propaganda about propaganda. The United States only cares about civil rights abroad when it can use it as a weapon against people it doesn't like. And you can fill an encyclopedia set of abuses it's committed at home, much less abroad. That's inconvenient for American Exceptionalists, which is why you try to shut down any such conversation with bleating about "whatabboutery".
So yeah, you try to use human rights as a political football, expect to have that shit thrown right back in your face where it belongs.
More whining and bitching but it doesn't change your hypocrisy. And waiving around tu quoque doesn't change the fact that you are engaging in propaganda when you attack other countries for XYZ but protest that it's just not faaaaair when anyone points out that you not only do XYZ as well, but on an infinitely larger scale.
Or you could stop waiving those hands for five seconds and post some evidence. If, say, I'm arguing with an Obamabot who insists 44 had the greatest intentions but was held back by a Republican Congress, I will bury his dumb ass with facts and citations on how the worst policies from the Obama Administration came from Obama himself, not Republicans.
If you Russiagaters weren't completely full of it, you would come into any discussion armed with hard facts and citations. You don't because you can't. All you have is a classic Gish Gallop:
And that's why you're in the same club as Birthers, Chem Trailers, and Lunar Conspiracy nuts. Because you have as much evidence for your crackpot ideas as they do.
You mean Crowdstrike that cites blog posts as evidence? Their analysis isn't fit to be toilet paper. And have you ever noticed that Mueller has never bother to subpoena the DNC servers for a proper FBI investigation, even though the alleged hacking of said servers is the entire foundation for Russiagate?
Either this was a farce of an investigation from day one, or Mueller is too incompetent to wipe his own ass, much less lead an investigation of a sitting president. Pick one.
Irrelevant. What Trump does or does not do does nothing to change the worth of Hillary's actions. It's not like you're going to give Trump a pass on some stupid lie he's told just because dumbass Hillary credited the Reagan's for their AIDS activism.
Care to try again, without the butthurt partisan drivel?
Because he didn't end them. Any more simple answers to simple questions?
Hypocrisy that doesn't exist? Now you're just engaging in willful dumbfuckery. The dozens of democracies overthrown by the United States alone makes you a liar of Biblical proportions.
Of course they have.
1) There is no scandal
2) Russiagaters keep moving the goalposts. First it was hacking the DNC servers, then it was hacking electric grids, then it was spreading "discord" amongst Black Lives Matter activists. That minorities live in a murderous police state was a big shocker to them until Russia said it was happening.
With zero probable suspison of any Russian hacking or colluding with Trump to do so. And he's never bothered to subpoena the DNC servers, the alleged hacking of which is only the foundation for the entire Russiagate narrative. Which either means this "investigation" was a farce from day one, or Mueller is so incompetent he couldn't find his ass with both hands and a couple of interns. Pick one.
Muller's reputation is of a professional liar and propagandist. But people like yourself just love getting fooled again and again.
Not even remotely close. This is one of the many plot holes with Russiagate - how is it that Putin would be so clever to see that a failed businessman, racist, sexist, WWE character could be president years in advance - yet at the same time was dumb enough to collude with someone as dumb as Trump or any of his equally dumb inner circle?
Trump could kill and eat a human baby on the White House lawn - and it wouldn't change the fact that Russiagate is the dumbest and most baseless conspiracy theory of all time.
Plot hole #3,478 of Russiagate: why would Putin try to influence an American election between two parties that have both been virulently anti-Russian for over a hundred years. It's like accusing MLK of trying to swing a primary election between George Wallace and Strom Thurmond in the 50's. It's just asinine on its face when both sides hate your guts.
When your grandkids ask you how anyone could possibly believe a story with more plot holes than Chem Trailers, are you going to get red in the face and stay quiet, or fess up?
Again - are you paying attention? Even the Russian indictments have nothing to do with hacking election systems and even the DOJ says they had no impact on the election. Probably because they're Twitter farms looking to make money from clickbait and ad revenue - similar business model to sites like Huffington Post or Drudge.
And even if Putin himself came over and rigged some Diebold machines, if there was no collusion with the Trump campaign, there is no Russiagate. That's one of the many plot holes in your dipshit conspiracy theory - if Putin was crafty enough to know years in advance that a failed businessmen and WWE character could win the presidency, why would he be so stupid as to collude with someone as stupid as Trump?
The makers of the Youtube video backs up their claims, unlike deranged partisan Russiagaters. Is there a UK company that brags about changing elections in America? Yes, yes there is. So what's your point again?
This a company that has bragged about subverting American elections - but they're based in the U.K., so don't expect to see Democrats or Rachael Maddow freaking out about them 24/7 for the next two years or more.
Really? So who forced her to:
Smear black and brown kids as Superpredators
Pick a right-wing pro-life running mate
Be a homophobe until the Supreme Court legalized gay marraige
Be an incompetent neocon warmonger
Not bother to campaign in the Rust Belt states that went for Trump
Rig the Democratic primary
Take hundreds of thousands from dirty banks as she was running for president
And so on. Hillary is rare among candidates in that the more she campaigned, the less people like her. Because she was a complete trainwreck of incompetence.
And as long as we're being honest, you know there's no such thing as a popular vote for president in the United States. Millions of people stay home or vote third party because they know full well their state is going for one party or the other. If everyone's vote actually counts, both candidates would have actually run completely different campaigns with completely different outcomes. Democrats in Texas would have a reason to go to the polls as well as Republicans in California.
Not when it's the same subject, and you're pointing out double standards and hypocrisy. As is usually the case, the people breaking out the "W" word are the real tools in the conversation.
You're deflecting and hand waiving.
It is when the speaker is completely and utterly full of shit. And you'd be doing the same damn thing if it was a speaker you disagreed with - hypocrite.
But it's going to be a part of the same conversation, a fact you're just going to have to deal with.
100% projection. The word Whataboutery itself is propaganda, used by hypocrites to deflect from their hypocrisy. Like all the whining, bitching and moaning about Trump's supposed collusion with foreign intelligence agents, when the Hillary campaign not only did that in fact, but they paid for it.
None of which have anything to do with Russia changing the results on voting machines or colluding with Trump.
Oh, but it does. See above. The rest of your post is a classic Gish Gallop:
As well established as the ideas that:
And so on. Russiagaters have exactly the same amount of evidence as all those other whackjob conspiracy theorists: none.
Uh, no. His behavior is the same as its always been: a loudmouthed game show host, WWE character who has diarrhea of the mouth. Doesn't make him a Putin puppet.
It's not - but it's everything that Russiagaters have been whining about for over a year and a half. A foreign company openly bragging about changing American elections - but the company is based in the U.K., not Russia, so the media and Stepford Democrats DGAF.