DiscussMormonism.com

its a party thang, correct?

1. John F Kennedy was an adulterer with alleged mob ties.
2. Ted Kennedy left her in the river.
3. Bill Clinton took advantage of a woman in the Oval Office.
4. Obama ran guns to Drug Lords.
5. Obama covertly gave millions to terrorist states.
6. Biden fondles females of all ages.
7. Hillary....'nuff said.
8. John Edwards and his "legit" campaign finances (indicted).
9. Blagojevich selling Senate seat.
10. Anthony Weiner.

Explain how Democrats are qualified to lecture anyone on the standards for political office?

(TIA)

subgenius wrote:its a party thang, correct?

1. John F Kennedy was an adulterer with alleged mob ties.
2. Ted Kennedy left her in the river.
3. Bill Clinton took advantage of a woman in the Oval Office.
4. Obama ran guns to Drug Lords.
5. Obama covertly gave millions to terrorist states.
6. Biden fondles females of all ages.
7. Hillary....'nuff said.
8. John Edwards and his "legit" campaign finances (indicted).
9. Blagojevich selling Senate seat.
10. Anthony Weiner.

Explain how Democrats are qualified to lecture anyone on the standards for political office?

(TIA)

Alternatively, perhaps you'd explain how you are.

I'm not sure that whataboutism will solve the nation's current ills.

Goya wrote:

subgenius wrote:its a party thang, correct?

1. John F Kennedy was an adulterer with alleged mob ties.
2. Ted Kennedy left her in the river.
3. Bill Clinton took advantage of a woman in the Oval Office.
4. Obama ran guns to Drug Lords.
5. Obama covertly gave millions to terrorist states.
6. Biden fondles females of all ages.
7. Hillary....'nuff said.
8. John Edwards and his "legit" campaign finances (indicted).
9. Blagojevich selling Senate seat.
10. Anthony Weiner.

Explain how Democrats are qualified to lecture anyone on the standards for political office?

(TIA)

Alternatively, perhaps you'd explain how you are.

If i ever claim to be then it would be appropriate for me to offer an explanation....but...

MeDotOrg wrote:I'm not sure that whataboutism will solve the nation's current ills.

whataboutism is a juvenile rebuttal that simply says "don't point out my hypocrisy!".
However, the premise in the OP is no different than almost every Republican-critical thread on this board whereas it seeks to condemn them by accusing them of being guilty of that which they themselves condemn.
Pointing out the hypocrisy of someone's position is not whataboutism unless by doing so you are seeking absolution and a justification for your own.

subgenius wrote:However, the premise in the OP is no different than almost every Republican-critical thread on this board whereas it seeks to condemn them by accusing them of being guilty of that which they themselves condemn.

Critical threads on this board tend to be timely, regarding current events. Needing to rationalize the behavior of the current Prez by trying to reach back across 50 years and gather up an odd list involving random ‘opposition’ politicians says more about you and your cohort than whomever you believe your target to be.

I find it odd that a religious "Conservative" would use the It's-Ok-My-Guy-Is-A-Piece-Of-Shit-Because-Your-Guy-Was-A-Piece-Of-Shit gambit, but whatever helps his dumb ass sleep at night is find by me.

- Doc

It is not an adequate response to the complaint

"We have an incompetent, self-seeking, habitually untruthful and probably corrupt President in office, and his behaviour is becoming more and more erratic as he cuts links with all sources of competent and experienced advice"

to say "well, other politicians have done bad things too".

Maybe, but what should be done NOW?

Chap wrote:It is not an adequate response to the complaint

"We have an incompetent, self-seeking, habitually untruthful and probably corrupt President in office, and his behaviour is becoming more and more erratic as he cuts links with all sources of competent and experienced advice"

to say "well, other politicians have done bad things too".

Maybe, but what should be done NOW?

Beyond the heaping dose of false equivalence, it assumes static support of parties over decades and decades. He might as well have complained about Andrew Jackson's policies on Native Americans. What about that Democrats?

canpakes wrote:

subgenius wrote:However, the premise in the OP is no different than almost every Republican-critical thread on this board whereas it seeks to condemn them by accusing them of being guilty of that which they themselves condemn.

Critical threads on this board tend to be timely, regarding current events. Needing to rationalize the behavior of the current Prez by trying to reach back across 50 years and gather up an odd list involving random ‘opposition’ politicians says more about you and your cohort than whomever you believe your target to be.

But the OP didn't seek to rationalize or even condone the actions of any President. Try to focus and dial down the manufactured outrage over trivial and inconsequential "characteristics". The OP sets forth the very real idiocy that you pretend to measure the "worthiness" of a politician with. The last 24 months of lawfare have been entertaining but inconsequential, they have been the oddest social therapy i have ever witnessed.
Nevertheless, this thread is not about excusing or condemning anyone's actions except those who pretend to be shocked by the behavior of Trump....suddenly you guys having a noble standard for how one is to be considered as "qualified" for political office all but dismisses your criticisms as childish and moronic.