snopes.com  

Go Back   snopes.com > SLC Central > Soapbox Derby

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #61  
Old 05 August 2017, 03:34 PM
Sue's Avatar
Sue Sue is offline
 
Join Date: 26 December 2011
Location: Ontario, Canada
Posts: 8,327
Default

Just read a story put out by Fox News (I know, I know) but the headline was interesting. Basically with regard to the grand jury etc it was "Even if he's guilty do you care?". The article managed to concede the possibility that Trump and his cronies are guilty of every damn thing they've been accused of but 'we' shouldn't care because the economy is doing great. Of course Fox would have run the exact same story had Clinton been in the White House facing similar charges and the economy was doing great. Of course. And all Trump's followers (the ones baying "lock her up" at his recent rally for instance) would feel exactly the same way. Of course.
Reply With Quote
  #62  
Old 05 August 2017, 04:22 PM
Steve Steve is offline
 
Join Date: 19 October 2002
Location: Charleston, SC
Posts: 4,703
Default

Do you mean this article? http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017...as-guilty.html Because it doesn't say what you're saying at all:
Quote:
As we hear Trump devotees wail that colluding with a hostile foreign power isnít a crime or cavil that Mueller & Co. might find other crimes unrelated to Russian disruption, what we are really hearing is their acceptance of wrongdoing. This is the big: ďSo what?Ē

The underlying argument is that she probably did something even worse, so if he lied, cheated and maybe even stole the election. For after all, he would have been only beating Democrats at their own game.

Even though this view represents a minority of a minority, it is still pretty strong evidence of an unwell national civic culture.
Reply With Quote
  #63  
Old 05 August 2017, 05:27 PM
Sue's Avatar
Sue Sue is offline
 
Join Date: 26 December 2011
Location: Ontario, Canada
Posts: 8,327
Default

I disagree. That article is basically saying "hey Trump might be bad but Clinton (Bill) was worse and he didn't get impeached" with a big helping of "and Clinton (Hillary) would have been just as bad for the country, maybe worse and let's keep the focus on the economy folks".
Reply With Quote
  #64  
Old 05 August 2017, 06:15 PM
Steve Steve is offline
 
Join Date: 19 October 2002
Location: Charleston, SC
Posts: 4,703
Default

He doesn't say we should focus on the economy. He merely points out that many Republicans will focus on the economy. I'm honestly not sure how you can square your reading with, say, the remark about the unwell national civic culture.
Reply With Quote
  #65  
Old 05 August 2017, 07:24 PM
ganzfeld's Avatar
ganzfeld ganzfeld is offline
 
Join Date: 05 September 2005
Location: Kyoto, Japan
Posts: 23,023
Default

Perhaps he didn't mean it that way but it certainly comes off as that old Birther trick of saying, "Now, do I think so? Not necessarily. But that's what people are saying. They are saying..." and two or three paragraphs explaining their "reasoning" without really pointing out that it's complete BS while and at the same time trying to avoid being blamed for spreading the BS. The headline doesn't help.
Reply With Quote
  #66  
Old 05 August 2017, 07:35 PM
Steve Steve is offline
 
Join Date: 19 October 2002
Location: Charleston, SC
Posts: 4,703
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ganzfeld View Post
and two or three paragraphs explaining their "reasoning" without really pointing out that it's complete BS
Yes he does. He refers to "the willful blindness of partisans." I don't know how that could be any clearer.

Last edited by Steve; 05 August 2017 at 07:51 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #67  
Old 05 August 2017, 07:48 PM
ganzfeld's Avatar
ganzfeld ganzfeld is offline
 
Join Date: 05 September 2005
Location: Kyoto, Japan
Posts: 23,023
Default

He's only criticising their "willful blindness" as a bad strategy. So he offers that and some other mealy mouthed criticism and then goes on to describe a method by which he thinks "folks will tend to get a lot more lenient in their thinking" - namely focusing on the economy. (But that's not what he wants them to do. Oh, no.) It really does come off as saying "I'm not saying this is what they should do but this would be the best thing they could do..." not at all as "this is what they are going to do because it's most prudent..." I'm not sure which parts made you think that. Never does he say that's what's likely to happen.

Then he tosses in this kind of BS promotion as spice: "since whatever is revealed will almost certainly fall short of the most hysterical claims of Trumpís foes". Again implying that his foes are hysterical without actually saying so. In that sense, it's a well-written piece. It says "should" without actually ever using that word.
Reply With Quote
  #68  
Old 05 August 2017, 08:04 PM
Steve Steve is offline
 
Join Date: 19 October 2002
Location: Charleston, SC
Posts: 4,703
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ganzfeld View Post
It really does come off as saying "I'm not saying this is what they should do but this would be the best thing they could do..." not at all as "this is what they are going to do because it's most prudent..." I'm not sure which parts made you think that.
Which parts made me think what? The bit about what's most prudent? I never said that so I'm not sure what you're saying I think.
Reply With Quote
  #69  
Old 05 August 2017, 08:11 PM
ganzfeld's Avatar
ganzfeld ganzfeld is offline
 
Join Date: 05 September 2005
Location: Kyoto, Japan
Posts: 23,023
Default

You didn't say prudent. But that's his argument. You said he's saying that's what they "will" do. That's what I don't get where you're seeing that. It's ambiguous. And that's part of what makes it seem like he's suggesting it as a good idea.
Reply With Quote
  #70  
Old 05 August 2017, 08:21 PM
Steve Steve is offline
 
Join Date: 19 October 2002
Location: Charleston, SC
Posts: 4,703
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ganzfeld View Post
You said he's saying that's what they "will" do. That's what I don't get where you're seeing that.
You quoted it above:
Quote:
But if there is a sense that removing or even further isolating the president could jeopardize a growing economy, folks will tend to get a lot more lenient in their thinking.
Reply With Quote
  #71  
Old 05 August 2017, 08:27 PM
ganzfeld's Avatar
ganzfeld ganzfeld is offline
 
Join Date: 05 September 2005
Location: Kyoto, Japan
Posts: 23,023
Default

OK, I don't see how you read that as saying that's what they will do at all. I mean, it just says "if". The "will" in the sentence is talking about the results of that possible strategy, not what the GOP will do.
Reply With Quote
  #72  
Old 06 August 2017, 02:04 AM
Mouse's Avatar
Mouse Mouse is offline
 
Join Date: 10 July 2003
Location: Oklahoma
Posts: 6,796
Mouse

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sue View Post
I disagree. That article is basically saying "hey Trump might be bad but Clinton (Bill) was worse and he didn't get impeached" with a big helping of "and Clinton (Hillary) would have been just as bad for the country, maybe worse and let's keep the focus on the economy folks".
It rather amazes me that the "But Clinton" defense is still being used, even though whatever your opinion of him may be, Bill Clinton hasn't been in power for sixteen years. At the same time, the Right seems to have developed a collective amnesia regarding the guy in power from 2000-2008.

Though at the same time, they remember 9/11. Someone needs to study these curious memory problems afflicting the Right.
Reply With Quote
  #73  
Old 08 August 2017, 01:33 PM
Cyrano's Avatar
Cyrano Cyrano is offline
 
Join Date: 01 September 2005
Location: Switzerland
Posts: 2,906
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mouse View Post
Though at the same time, they remember 9/11.
Not all of them, like Rudy "there was no terrorist attack on US territory before Obama took office" Giuliani.
Reply With Quote
  #74  
Old 09 August 2017, 01:20 AM
Mouse's Avatar
Mouse Mouse is offline
 
Join Date: 10 July 2003
Location: Oklahoma
Posts: 6,796
Mouse

But Rudy Guiliani's sentences always contain three things: a subject, a verb, and 9/11.

Scientists should study this strange form of dementia afflicting much of the Right. Though I don't know if dementia is the proper term. Even someone with dementia displays better reasoning and a basic level of empathy that's generally lacking on the Right.
Reply With Quote
  #75  
Old 09 August 2017, 01:45 AM
Steve Steve is offline
 
Join Date: 19 October 2002
Location: Charleston, SC
Posts: 4,703
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mouse View Post
It rather amazes me that the "But Clinton" defense is still being used
But there wasn't a "But Clinton" defense. Despite what Sue claims, no, nothing in that article says that Bill Clinton was worse than Trump. It makes a historical comparison. At no point does it say Trump's ok because Bill Clinton was worse.
Reply With Quote
  #76  
Old 09 August 2017, 02:00 AM
GenYus234's Avatar
GenYus234 GenYus234 is offline
 
Join Date: 02 August 2005
Location: Mesa, AZ
Posts: 24,381
Default

Sue didn't say anything about a "but Clinton" defense. She sarcastically guessed that the same tolerance would be shown Hillary Clinton.
Reply With Quote
  #77  
Old 09 August 2017, 02:03 AM
Steve Steve is offline
 
Join Date: 19 October 2002
Location: Charleston, SC
Posts: 4,703
Default

No, she wrote as a sarcastic summary of the article, ""hey Trump might be bad but Clinton (Bill) was worse and he didn't get impeached"
Reply With Quote
  #78  
Old 09 August 2017, 03:41 AM
ganzfeld's Avatar
ganzfeld ganzfeld is offline
 
Join Date: 05 September 2005
Location: Kyoto, Japan
Posts: 23,023
Default

It mentions the phenomenon several times and comes very close to saying it would be a good strategy to use it (while tiptoeing carefully around the issue of whether it would actually be a good thing), pointing out that it worked for Trump during the campaign. So, yes, it's not a But Clinton but the fact that comments about also mention But Clinton should come as no surprise at all. Mouse never said the article itself uses the But Clinton defence.
Reply With Quote
  #79  
Old 10 August 2017, 01:47 AM
Mouse's Avatar
Mouse Mouse is offline
 
Join Date: 10 July 2003
Location: Oklahoma
Posts: 6,796
Mouse

To further split hairs, I was responding to Sue's comment on the article.

I stand by my general comment, though. How long are they going to utilize the "But Clinton" defense? And while we're at it, how is it that the Bush II years seem to have disappeared from the collective cultural memory?
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Every story I have read about Trump supporters in the past week Steve Fun House 6 07 April 2017 12:26 AM
Trumpís supporters talk rebellion, assassination at his rallies TallGeekyGirl Soapbox Derby 31 19 October 2016 03:47 PM
How Donald Trump Supporters Attack Journalists TallGeekyGirl Soapbox Derby 1 08 October 2016 12:50 AM
Bernie Vs Trump Supporters Receipts Ziggy Fauxtography 4 09 May 2016 06:21 PM
Trump supporters, protesters clash after Chicago rally postponed TallGeekyGirl Soapbox Derby 56 19 March 2016 11:54 AM


All times are GMT. The time now is 10:28 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.