Reply With Quote
Probably not tho.
Probably not tho.
They never are.
Always legit to challenge a lack of transparency and no bid contracts. Red team pearl-clutching is amusing, the blindfold always seems to be on when Trump does the very same.
, where's the public record of Kushner's COVID-19 taskforce or oversight for CARES Act programs?
Whataboutism.
One to one comparisons aren't whataboutism.
You should read my reply more carefully, I didn't dismiss or try to distract. I started by saying it's always legit to challenge no-bid public contracts and lack of transparency. Apparently you think it's a one-way street.
Your principles stop at the partisan hedgerow; I agreed it's legit to challenge Whitmer for deals to political cronies and lack of transparency.
I agree, but what about
Blakehole
There's a logical distinction between "no, but" and "yes, and" you seem to be unwilling to acknowledge.
No skin off me, everyone can see what you're doing.
He said also Republicans. Don't be so defensive.
Everyone who hides the ball or awards no bid contracts should be called out, yes or no?
Yes with the caveat that if it's a Democrat we should casually brush it aside and say but Repugs amirite?
When did he actually do that here? You're so quick to defend Republicans you didn't even read what he wrote.
I started by agreeing it's legit to criticize and press Gov. Whitmer for disclosure about the no-bid contracts. If she's hiding the ball it's legit to call her out for that too.
It's in the first sentence of my first reply to this thread in case you're wondering where I said it.
Should be investigated, tbh...
Let the chips fall.
The way they dropped it like a hot potato once it became known isn't a good look.
Governors do have broad authority during emergencies... but that doesn't mean situations like that shouldn't be investigated post-facto...
whataboutism[ hwuht-uh-bou-tiz-uhm, wuht‐, hwot‐, wot‐ ]SHOW IPA
noun
a conversational tactic in which a person responds to an argument or attack by changing the subject to focus on someone else’s misconduct, implying that all criticism is invalid because no one is completely blameless:
I never implied anyone was blameless, indeed, I emphasized that I think the criticism in the OP is fitting. I guess there's not a name for whataboutism that isn't a deflection.
whataboutism[ hwuht-uh-bou-tiz-uhm, wuht‐, hwot‐, wot‐ ]SHOW IPA
noun
a conversational tactic in which a person responds to an argument or attack by changing the subject to focus on someone else’s misconduct, implying that all criticism is invalid because no one is completely blameless:
#themtoo
It's a version of tu quoque, but in essence I agree with Spurtacular that it looks fishy and with El Nono that an investigation wouldn't be out of place.
What's weird is that red team won't accept that I agree with them on this.
it
her smartest response would be: When the president releases his taxes and complies with legit oversight -
I will too.
Yup - whataboutism -
no different than what the right defends when the criminal in chief does it
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
