So ifs not a facf but just your opinion.
Good to know.
1 Like
If some trace back to Australian Natives, that begs the question of what race are the Australian Natives?
âŚexcept the part where comparing a past president in this case only served to distract from the current presidentâs failures by saying âwell, the other guy didnât lead either.â That makes the case AGAINST Trump.
The Mormons have some ideas on this.
Sapiens are all one race, regardless of superficial things like skin pigmentation.
Different races of humans include (but are not limited to):
Heidelbergensis
Rudolfensis
Habilis
Floresiensis
Erectus
Neanderthalensis
And they constructed new barriers that were hundreds of miles. Trump has achieved 3 miles in almost 4 years.
Letâs see, 16 years for hundreds of miles of new barrier. 4 years for three miles of new barrier.
Yep, the argument is sound. Want to try again?
Promises made. Promises failed!
2 Likes
I see someone is parroting radical left-wing talking points over and over again.
When I redo someone kitchen itâs a new kitchen.
Iâm not real familiar but I know they have a different history about South America than whatâs told in history books.
is that how you see it? Funny, I see it as a check on intellectual honesty. One can be assured that the left didnât complain about Obama. So if lack of leadership wasnât a problem for them then, why is it now.
I think that being fixated on the assumption that the comparison is intended to absolve Trump is where people are tripping up and getting confused.
He did do hundreds of miles of new wall.
SayâŚlibs donât know what it take to build stuff do they?
Trump promised to construct hundreds of miles of new wall. He has constructed three new miles.
If you promised a developer you would redo the kitchens of 100 rental properties of theirs, and only redid 3 of them, did you fulfill you promise? Nope. You failed.
Promises made. Promises failed!
1 Like
Liberal thinkers built this country.
1 Like
Promises made. Promises failed!
We both know Trump didnât campaign on replacing existing barriers. Come on man.
1 Like
Liberal thinkers?
Yes. You probably call them Classical Liberals.
Well let me know when libs has one.
Do you really not see a difference between:
âI believe Obama was a leader and Trump is notâ
and
âSo what if Trump doesnât lead, neither did Obama?â
One differentiates between the two, and suggests one was a leader by example and that one was not.
The other excuses a lack of leadership by example from Trump by suggesting Obama didnât lead by example.
âŚbecause thatâs exactly what it tries to do. It says Trumpâs behavior is fine, because itâs the same as Obama. But if Trump was elected to be BETTER THAN Obama, and because he was NOT Obama, and because people didnât like Obama. So how is âheâs acting like Obamaâ anything but a hypocritical defense?
Whataboutism is basically just another word for the tu quoque fallacy:
Definition of tu quoque
: a retort charging an adversary with being or doing what the adversary criticizes in others
Itâs a really elementary-level excuse. âHe did it first,â as if that justifies âyouâ having done it.
Little Johnny saying to teacher âJimmy did it first, so why didnât he get in troubleâ doesnât absolve Little Johnny of his own wrongdoing.
When libs has one what?
while the phrase âtu quoqueâ sends tingles up the legs of the left, it is really just a diversionary tactic to invoke the name of that fallacy. It is almost never used correctly and now is - in some places - being even sloppily redefined to accommodate the erroneous usage.
to quote from WikimediaâŚ
Tu quoque âargumentâ follows the pattern:[2]
1. Person A makes claim X.
2. Person B asserts that Aâs actions or past claims are inconsistent with the truth of claim X.
3. Therefore, X is false.
you see, what you call âwhataboutismâ is not an attempt to declare your statements about Trump as false. ( THAT is and can be done with facts that have little to do with the âwhataboutismâ). What you call âwhataboutismâ is simply as way to establish whether your complaint about Trump is an actual concern about lack of leadership or is it just a political rant. If someone was attempting to use the comparison with Obama to prove your assertion about Trump is false, that would be a legitimate tu quoque logical fallacy. But thatâs not the case.
But dont feel bad. Many a lib gets that tingle when they think they can invoke a latin phrase to defend themselves. That is some kind of logical fallacy in itself, I think 
1 Like
âSloppily redefinedâ by Merriam-Webster.
The hilarious part is that you left out the VERY NEXT LINE of the âwikimediaâ article that goes on to explain exactly what your selectively copy/pasted part says:
It is a fallacy because the moral character or actions of the opponent are generally irrelevant to the logic of the argument.[3] It is often used as a red herring tactic and is a special case of the ad hominem fallacy, which is a category of fallacies in which a claim or argument is rejected on the basis of facts about the person presenting or supporting the claim or argument.[4]
The article goes on to give the following example:
In the trial of Nazi war criminal Klaus Barbie, the controversial lawyer Jacques Vergès tried to present what was defined as a Tu Quoque Defence âi.e., that during the Algerian War, French officers such as General Jacques Massu had committed war crimes similar to those with which Barbie was being charged, and therefore the French state had no moral right to try Barbie. This defence was rejected by the court, which convicted Barbie.[[5]]
Convenient you left that part out.
Very similar to what I described here:
Johnny only brought up Jimmy to distract from, or to justify, his own behavior. It justifies his behavior by saying âJimmy did it firstâ, suggesting he shouldnât get in trouble if Jimmy didnât., or âwhy wasnât it a big deal with Jimmy did it, but itâs a big deal with I did it?â
âDid Obama lead by exampleâ was an attempt to distract away from Trump. Or âtu quoqueâ or âwhataboutism.â
No amount of continued edits are going to change that.
