Trump Treason

Sung to Irish tune Danny Boy. "Oh Donnie Boy, the Feds the Feds are calling....The IRS, Manhattan DA too...." Have fun with it.

Capt Gregory Prickett Of course. I’m racist for not agreeing with you and not posting along Party lines.
The Nazi agenda parallels the Democrats party platform. Yet, they call everyone who disagrees with them racist. Odd. Don’t you think? Unless, you agree only white folks can be racists. Those evil white Devils.

Cpl Mark A. Morris - No, you're a racist because you think that you're better than blacks or Hispanics or Indians.

Capt Gregory Prickett Once again, you give false witness. But I expect it from you.

Cpl Mark A. Morris - OK, let's post some of your quotes, and critique them:

2017: "Why has Mexico been allowed to invade America? . . . We do not need any more Marxists and Democrat voters."

2017: "La Raza. That means the race. Another commie front group pushing lies about history. I bet Soro's funded."

2017: "Since an overwhelming amount of minority teachers can't pass the test, scraping the exam will really help the students. Right?"

2020: "That is just the African-American community/sub-culture. One part of a full court press to divide and destroy this nation."

These are not racist in your view?

SSgt (Join to see) -

Whatboutism works both ways. Anyone that oversteps the boundaries of permissible and peaceful assembly and protest is subject to any legal actions govt. wants to dish out. Left, right or center. The last folks that did this were considered an enemy. We were engaged in war with them. The Constitution has been amended since then, but nothing that lessens the severity of an attack on our US Capitol, or inciting it. What about that?

Point 1: I was not debating the OP.
Point 2: I did not disagree with the OP.
Point 3: I did not attack the OP with my replies.
Point 4: The longer running "argument" is Orange Man Bad, impeach, criminally charge him but don't worry about the others that do it. That is hypocrisy, pure and simple. Justice is supposed to be blind - to wallets, political parties, skin color, sexual orientation, and the other myriad of characteristics that make up human beings.

So, I did more digging as I am NOT a debate master nor did I ever take any debate classes. I already know I can't claim ignorance in a debate as it is up to me to be prepared. So, into deeper definitions of a couple of fallacies...

The “tu quoque,” Latin for “you too,” is also called the “appeal to hypocrisy” because it distracts from the argument by pointing out hypocrisy in the opponent. This tactic doesn’t solve the problem, or prove one’s point, because even hypocrites can tell the truth. Focusing on the other person’s hypocrisy is a diversionary tactic. In this way, using the tu quoque typically deflects criticism away from yourself by accusing the other person of the same problem or something comparable. If Jack says, “Maybe I committed a little adultery, but so did you Jason!” Jack is trying to diminish his responsibility or defend his actions by distributing blame to other people. But no one else’s guilt excuses his own guilt. No matter who else is guilty, Jack is still an adulterer.

The tu quoque fallacy is an attempt to divert blame, but it really only distracts from the initial problem. To be clear, however, it isn’t a fallacy to simply point out hypocrisy where it occurs. For example, Jack may say, “yes, I committed adultery. Jill committed adultery. Lots of us did, but I’m still responsible for my mistakes.” In this example, Jack isn’t defending himself or excusing his behavior. He’s admitting his part within a larger problem. The hypocrisy claim becomes a tu quoque fallacy only when the arguer uses some (apparent) hypocrisy to neutralize criticism and distract from the issue.

So let's look at another fallacy: Ad Hominin:
When people think of “arguments,” often their first thought is of shouting matches riddled with personal attacks. Ironically, personal attacks run contrary to rational arguments. In logic and rhetoric, a personal attack is called an ad hominem. Ad hominem is Latin for “against the man.” Instead of advancing good sound reasoning, an ad hominem replaces logical argumentation with attack-language unrelated to the truth of the matter.

More specifically, the ad hominem is a fallacy of relevance where someone rejects or criticizes another person’s view on the basis of personal characteristics, background, physical appearance, or other features irrelevant to the argument at issue.

An ad hominem is more than just an insult. It’s an insult used as if it were an argument or evidence in support of a conclusion. Verbally attacking people proves nothing about the truth or falsity of their claims. Use of an ad hominem is commonly known in politics as “mudslinging.” Instead of addressing the candidate’s stance on the issues, or addressing his or her effectiveness as a statesman or stateswoman, an ad hominem focuses on personality issues, speech patterns, wardrobe, style, and other things that affect popularity but have no bearing on their competence. In this way, an ad hominem can be unethical, seeking to manipulate voters by appealing to irrelevant foibles and name-calling instead of addressing core issues. In this last election cycle, personal attacks were volleyed freely from all sides of the political aisle, with both Clinton and Trump facing their fair share of ad hominem fallacies.

Now, with that in mind, every time any of you point out that I cannot have my facts straight because I (fill in the blank - supported Trump, am conservative, used a news source you disagree with, am white, am male, am a racist, etc, etc) I will simple write Ad Hominin Fallacy until you can come back to the debate table. Until then these are just shouting matches.

https://thebestschools.org/magazine/15-logical-fallacies-know/

MSgt Steve Sweeney - Ad Hominin Fallacy my friend.