ANY POTUS since 1953 could have had a summit with NK - but chose not to

hmmmm

McCain twists Obama's words

May 21st, 2008

In trying to portray Sen. Barack Obama as a neophyte when it comes to international relations, Sen. John McCain seized on some comparisons Obama made between the relative threat of Iran now vs. the Soviet Union during the Cold War.
"Senator Obama claimed that the threat Iran poses to our security is 'tiny' compared to the threat once posed by the former Soviet Union," McCain said before the National Restaurant Association in Chicago on May 19, 2008. "Obviously, Iran isn't a superpower and doesn't possess the military power the Soviet Union had. But that does not mean that the threat posed by Iran is insignificant.

(What Barack Obama said, is posted at the link)

One could argue whether it's wise to meet with leaders of rogue nations. One could also debate whether Obama wrongly downplayed the threat posed by Iran. But Obama never said the threat from Iran was "tiny" or "insignificant," only that the threat was tiny in comparison to the threat once posed by the Soviet Union. In fact, Obama has repeatedly called Iran a grave threat. We rule McCain's statement False.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...ay/21/john-mccain/mccain-twists-obamas-words/
 
attachment.php
 
I am certain you complained about Obama when he made deals with Iran because you LOVE the Christians.

Okay. Here’s the thing about Whataboutism: it doesn’t change the fact that your guy is in the wrong.

Sure, Obama fucked up a lot. It doesn’t matter when evaluating what Trump does. Trumps the President now. He’s (potentially) fucking up. Now. Complaining about what Obama did before doesn’t change that fact. The guy you’re arguing with is still winning.

Now, if we were talking about whether Obama needs to be brought to justice for something he did, then what happened during the Obama administration matters. But bringing that up in this thread would be diversionary, and hopefully I’m not stupid enough to fall for it.

Edit: I doubled a word word.
 
Last edited:
None of the others were positioned to enforce their will on the Norks by force of arms either.
 
President Trump says, he doesn't blame other Nation's for the current trade inequities; he blames U.S. past presidents. So true.
 
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2008/may/21/next-defining-campaign-issue/

"I would," Obama said. "And the reason is this, that the notion that somehow not talking to countries is punishment to them — which has been the guiding diplomatic principle of this administration — is ridiculous."

Did he praise Castro et al as “good men who love their country?”

(I guess I am stupid enough to engage in Whataboutism. :( But the truth is, I’m genuinely curious. I want to know if how Trump is treat Kim is truly unprecedented. Because, in the years to come, if it turns out what Trump’s doing actually works, then, holy shit, does conventional wisdom of Presidential decorum need to be trashed and trashed hard.)
 
*images of Obama meeting foreign leaders*
*name calling*

Use your words, man. I have no idea what point you are trying to make. Unless it’s just, “You guys suck.”

If that’s the case, having said it once, you have no need to say it again,
 
Okay. Here’s the thing about Whataboutism: it doesn’t change the fact that your guy is in the wrong wrong.

Sure, Obama fucked up a lot. It doesn’t matter when evaluating what Trump does. Trumps the President now. He’s (potentially) fucking up. Now. Complaining about what Obama did before doesn’t change that fact. The guy you’re arguing with is still winning.

Now, if we were talking about whether Obama needs to be brought to justice for something he did, then what happened during the Obama administration matters. But bringing that up in this thread would be diversionary, and hopefully I’m not stupid enough to fall for it.

They are disingenuous liars who cannot accept that their gold flake god is an extraordinary disaster.
 
Okay. Here’s the thing about Whataboutism: it doesn’t change the fact that your guy is in the wrong wrong.

It also doesn't make the folks who cheer/support the similar if not the same exact shit as long as it's THEIR guy/party doing it..... any less the hypocrites for bitching about it when the other team/POTUS does.

That's why being a partisan is looked at as a negative thing, it's a direct implication that you're a hypocritical shithead incapable of thinking for yourself.
 
That's why being a partisan is looked at as a negative thing, it's a direct implication that you're a hypocritical shithead incapable of thinking for yourself.

Agreed. I honestly think Trump and FOX use the tactic a whole hell of a lot, and that makes them hypocritical shitheads. Edit: I don’t doubt there are Whataboutists in the Democratic Party, too. Still, that fact doesn’t absolve Trump of his shitheadedness.

There’s even this surreal moment when Sean Hannity attacks the Mueller investigation by literally just saying “What about [name]? What about [next name on list]?”...at least two dozen times.

Unfortunately, the only clip I can find in it is smack dab in the middle of a John Oliver rant about Whataboutism, so, if you’re a Trump supporter, you’d probably puke before you got to it. But if you’re a masochist, here ‘tis.
 
Last edited:
There’s even this surreal moment when Sean Hannity attacks the Mueller investigation by literally just saying “What about [name]? What about [next name on list]?”...at least two dozen times.
Hannity also called (on air!) for any potential witnesses in Mueller's probes to destroy their phones. That's witness-tampering, destruction of evidence. He should be indicted for that.
 
Hannity also called (on air!) for any potential witnesses in Mueller's probes to destroy their phones. That's witness-tampering, destruction of evidence. He should be indicted for that.

this is fake news

what Hannity did was to say

DO EXACTLY WHAT CUNTCLINTON AND HER TEAM DID, AND GOT AWAY WITH!
 
Back
Top