The Clinton and Obama card is played to get attention off of Trump and anything being discussed at the time. It's a diversion because the poster can't defend Trump and his administration. In Monopoly it is like a "get out of jail free" card and has a lot of the same qualities. In the real world most of us are talking about the one in power right now. Some of us with no answers do not live in the real world.

it's called what-aboutism. you say "you just ran over my cat with your car!" and the driver defends himself by saying "well, john tore your notebook last week, why aren't you mad at him?" "trump broke the law," "well, what about clinton? fdr? the man in the moon?"

g

@genessa AKA The straw man argument: [en.wikipedia.org]

@Stephanie99 in the case of hillary clinton, yes also the straw man argument. there are instances (rare lately) in which it's what-aboutism without the straw man, but it's still changing the subject lol

g

Give us a break.
Your weasel faced loser Trey Gowdy has had Clinton testifying how many hours now?

Nothing.

And just because you are living in the echo chamber of Fox news and chatter head right wing radio does not make that reality for the rest of us.

Sarah Palin is still not smart, and has a trash family

And it is illegal to destroy Presidential records.

You don't think it is at all suspect that he wanted to destroy evidence of what he said to Putin?

@BufftonBeotch 1. clinton was cleared, not only by the fbi but by several republican-run investigations, soc-called, which kevin mccarthy publicly admitted existed only to her her presidential chances. she testified for 11 straight hours, and no one could pin a thing on her because there wasn't anything TO pin on her. 2. she didn't destroy government documents. she destroyed shopping lists and private correspondence. 3. even if clinton had murdered god, robbed the devil and cursed in a kindergarten, what's that got to do with trump? what-aboutism is a stupid way to argue. only trolls and idiots use what-aboutism. which are you?

g

@genessa Facts matter. The corrupt agencies and press have ignored them to create non-facts. It isn't working.. Fasten your seat belt. We're about to round a sharp corner or two.

@Silver1wun double-post? anyway, yes facts matter. some people have 'em, some don't. not all media are corrupt. some are. which agencies did you mean? trump's appointees are all corrupt. it was their main qualification.

g

@genessa 'Religion', or theological fanaticism as I call it, is for believers who are dependent on their subscriptions to 'isms' to be fed what they think they know about what is, and what is to come. There is about two bits worth of difference between mindless cattle dwelling in corrals and the herds wandering pastures believing themselves free, while awaiting the pick-up with the bell, loaded with hay. Whether fences are wood or barbed wire, their functions are identical.

Knowledge is information but not all information is knowledge. Good nourishment can be thought of as a diet, but not all diets are good nourishment. It isn't by coincidence that theology has it's pastors and politics has it's leaders, yet without their flocks or constituencies they are all bloated hot air bags bellowing in empty, genuine echo chambers. When one sups on that made available by overseers in return for allegiance and dwelling in the congregations of the hooved, everything they perceive is in herd terms because independence and individuality are lost in the bargain. That is how it works and as a bonus, the herd identifies strongly with the captors upon which it is dependent.

Anything else is unthinkable for group thinking creatures.

Most Atheists have left their respective corrals and meet in shared pastures genuinely believing they are free and seeing passing or near-by mavericks outside the wire fences as no more than members of another herd like themselves; being nourished by whatever their pastors give them for a diet.

Now consider the possibility that some other fellow humans, who either agree with you or don't , because it works both ways, might actually choose for themselves what to consume and where to obtain it. There are such people and their sources of intellectual nourishment transcend such trivialities as personality cult politics and cult identity menu selections. We all have to consume information. We're designed for it. But unless it has been abdicated, we also have the freedom to pick and choose from all of the kinds available; not the least of which is genuine independent scholarship transcending curricular boundaries.

CNN, FOXNEWS, Political party and PAC talking points, ABC, The New York Times, People Magazine, Domestic Network talk-show fares, MSNBC, etc. all offer menus. All offer items on their menus that are genuinely nourishing as well as lots of artificially sweetened and specialized diet fare. If one wishes to choose for themselves what to consume, some can choose from a menu and some can be prepared at home. All kinds of options are available with freedom and independence.

It is difficult for menu diners to understand why a person choosing an 'item to go' and waiting for it with a bag under their arm with another food outlet's logo, might not want to join them as a fellow, regular customer.

In order to choose a position on something, like choosing a restaurant side-dish or dessert to go home, one often finds themselves 'in the company' of regular diners who think them to be part of the regular clientele or spotting the logo on the other bag might think it to be evidence of disloyalty or poor taste.

NOBODY can buy any item available on any information menu without being thought either 'with us or agin' us'. Anything more sophisticated is incomprehensible to those who've submitted cognitive faculties in exchange for an identity brand on their rump and whatever is in the trough or the turf. Misunderstanding is part of the tribute exacted for keeping freedom of choice. It's well worth it. Doesn't the small hors d'oeuvre platter of atheism give you even a little taste for it?

@Silver1wun i am so glad you've done those studies and know what most atheists and most people and most religions and most news outlets and most fortune cookies and most armadillos think/do/dream, and i am so glad you decided to share it here for no discernible reason, but you know what? trump destroyed federal documents and he did so under circumstances that lead any intelligent person to think he was hiding something important. that's a crime. nothing you've said has any bearing on that. not a word. not half a word. and quite frankly it would've been a more fascinating read if it had been limited to half a word.

g

@genessa That the Presdent of the United States personaly destroyed or ordered destruction of an interpreter's 'notes' isn't a matter of fact, but rather of imagination and paranoid suspicion. Interpreters' notes are routinely destroyed; as they are mostly comprised of disjointed written aids applying to only arriving at optimal equivalent terms between the two language. They are not, as is falsely propagated, anything like 'minutes' of a meeting, as propaganda represents them to be. They are also a personal tool of a translator who by profession is sworn to secrecy and personal confidence like a lawyer or physician. There is no established format for them.

Top secret, private conversations between a President as chief executive of the Executive branch are not something to which the co-equal Legislative branch of government is entitled. It is neither within their purview nor function to dictate a Chief Executive's conduct arbitrarily.

This fabricated, baseless allegation is just another example of misinformation propagated by interested parties in American news media; the feed they pour into troughs attended by loyal flocks.

@Silver1wun if you say so. oh wait.... NOT. your being in denial doesn't actually obscure the obvious. if i wanted bloviating i'd listen to a trump speech. since i don't, BYE!

g