Bernie Sanders weighs in on the reason he thinks Kavanaugh should not have been nominated

[ehrnst]

Last edited Tue Sep 17, 2019, 11:11 AM - Edit history (3)

I think that he left a few things out.

[Uncle Joe]

1. I believe you did as well ehrnst.

Link to tweet

Thanks for the thread.

[George II]

8. Still no mention of Kavanaugh being a sexual predator - if you saw those tweets...

...surely you saw the dozens of tweets bringing that to his attention.

[mr_lebowski]

15. Might want to check the timestamps ...

Bernie was talking about the NYT revelations (re: his being sexual predator) in the 12pm hour, and the Wall Street stuff in the 3pm hour, both on 9/15.

[George II]

19. Not here...

https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1287&pid=282276

[HeartlandProgressive]

9. +1000

Interesting omission. Thanks for pointing this out.

[ehrnst]

62. Thank you for the kick!

A pleasure as always.

Please give my regards to Mikeysnot.

[Uncle Joe]

74. You're welcome and

likewise, here's a nice article by Jeff Cohen that you may wish to check out.

What George Carlin Taught Us About Media Propaganda by Omission: On Bernie Sanders, Medicare for All and the Green New Deal

https://www.democraticunderground.com/1287282082

[ehrnst]

76. Well then. That TOTALLY validates your rebuttal, doesn't it?

Last edited Tue Sep 17, 2019, 06:10 AM - Edit history (2)

Your 'splanations always spark joy, Uncle Joe, I'll give you that.

But since you brought it up.... here's a sterling example of "Media Propaganda by Omission"

The Intercept tried to give all praise and glory to Bernie's 'blessing' as the reason that african american candidate Randall Woodfin managed to somehow, against ALL ODDS get elected mayor of a deep blue, primarily AA city, in the South, and tried to diminish his activism in the 2016 elections to his "backing" Clinton, when he was actually Hillary Rodham Clinton's Alabama state campaign lead, because acknowledging and including that inconvenient fact didn't support the Intercept editorial precept that BERNIE was actually the wellspring of any victories of progressive candidates. Especially African American ones because that proves that Bernie is very influential in persuading them to vote in their own best interests!



https://www.birminghamtimes.com/2016/07/hillarys-team-in-alabama-ready-for-next-weeks-democratic-convention/

But I guess one appopriates validation for one's bias where one can, and the Intercept seemed to be in need of victories at that time.

Thank you for bringing "Media Propaganda by Omission" into the discussion. Aren't you glad you did?







You did pass along my love to Mikeysnot, yes?

[betsuni]

83. +1

[Bluepinky]

2. Bernie Sanders was correct, can't argue with him here.

A lot wasn’t known about Kavanaugh in the beginning.

[ehrnst]

17. This was a tweet from yesterday.

Last edited Mon Sep 16, 2019, 12:54 PM - Edit history (2)

Long after the revelations of sexual misconduct and the perjury surrounding it.

If he's postulating the idea that someone Trump nominates would be anything but protective of the wrong people, then that's something that was known long, long ago.

One might as well say that Russia shouldn't have interfered with our elections.

[Act_of_Reparation]

3. You know that wheel on the middle of your mouse?

Use it.

[ehrnst]

18. ??

[Act_of_Reparation]

20. You don't understand what the scroll wheel is for?

Or you're still having trouble locating it?

I'll hold.

[ehrnst]

21. No problem understanding that. It's the point of why you're talking about the scroll wheel

that's vague, unlike your pique at the OP.

Is that clearer?

I'll hold.

[Act_of_Reparation]

23. Twitter is a feed.

That is, a continuous string of posts arranged by publication time, in descending order. There are posts above and below the example you provided here. Posts that would be visible to you if you scroll up or down.

Make sense?

[ehrnst]

24. You're unhappy about the OP.

I get it.

[Act_of_Reparation]

28. Not so much unhappy as concerned.

Think of it like walking around with a giant hole in the seat of your pants. If I was unwittingly embarrassing myself, I would want someone to tell me.

[ehrnst]

30. Your concern is noted.

Perhaps it would be better directed at rather self-evident statements made that are along the lines of "Russia should not have interfered with our election, because they knew it was wrong. "

[Act_of_Reparation]

31. Sorry.

I don't speak Whataboutism.

[ehrnst]

32. Neither do I.

But here's something that might help you with your stress about the OP:



You're welcome.

[melman]

25. They know

There's a reason they posted a screen shot instead of a link.

[ehrnst]

27. ...

[Act_of_Reparation]

29. ....

....


....
...
..
.


.
..
...
....

emoji

[ehrnst]

33. ....

[Act_of_Reparation]

35. ............................

#someplatitude

Digital Nickelodeon

[ehrnst]

37. .....

Seemed completely appropriate.

[Act_of_Reparation]

45. .-.-.- .-.-.- .-.-.-

In your judgement, I'm sure it was.

Emoji

[ehrnst]

46. Considering who I responded to

it clearly was.

But since it's causing you so much consternation, here is how to find a link to the actual twitter feed:



Maybe you missed it? @BernieSanders

Use it.

I try to help out when I see confusion.

[Act_of_Reparation]

47. ..- .... -....- ..- ....

.. ..-. / -.-. --- -. ... .. -.. . .-. .. -. --. / .-- .- ... / ... --- -- . - .... .. -. --. / .- - / .-- .... .. -.-. .... / -.-- --- ..- / . -..- -.-. . .-.. .-.. . -.. / .-- . / .-- --- ..- .-.. -.. -. .----. - / -... . / .... .- ...- .. -. --. / - .... .. ... / -.-. --- -. ...- . .-. ... .- - .. --- -. / .-. .. --. .... - / -. --- .-- .-.-.-

[ehrnst]

49. - --- --- / -.-. .-.. . ...- . .-.

-... -.-- / --- -. . / . .. --. .... - ....

I guess you changed your mind?

[sheshe2]

57. Translation.

uhuf

consideringwassomethingatwhichyouexcelledwewouldn'tbehavingthisconversationrightnow.

Cool beans! the Google has a Morse code translator! Who knew?! I sure didn't. Thanks!

[ehrnst]

63. IKR?

--- -. . / -.-. .- -. / - . .-.. .-.. / .-- .... . -. / .--. --- .-. -. .... ..- -... / .. ... / -.. --- .-- -.

[sheshe2]

69. Lol!

[ehrnst]

70. ....

[George II]

72. In other words that was a coded personal attack.

[ehrnst]

73. Yes.

That didn't demonstrate either the ability or courage to reply with an intellectual or fact-based rebuttal.

Anger will do that.

[sheshe2]

78. Yes it was George.

[ehrnst]

84. Excelling at not having the courage to come out and say what one means.

Last edited Tue Sep 17, 2019, 07:36 AM - Edit history (1)

What's your thesaurus got for that one?

[Act_of_Reparation]

88. Eisegesis

EMOJI

[ehrnst]

89. Somebody is still very unhappy, aren't they? Took to the thesaurus again!

Only thing left, eh?

[Act_of_Reparation]

90. On the contrary, I am extremely happy.

THIS IS A CLEVER PICTURE

EMOJI

[ehrnst]

91. Thanks for kicking the thread yet again. Clearly the result of a confident, happy state of mind.

..-. .- -.- . / .. - / - .. .-.. / -.-- --- ..- / -- .- -.- . / .. - / .-. .. --. .... - ..--..

HERE'S A GIF FOR YOU.




You're welcome.

[ehrnst]

38. ....

"Sleazy?"

[George II]

40. People use screen shots because tweets that get as much push back as that one did....

....tend to get deleted.

[ehrnst]

41. And it's not like I haven't done this before.

Last edited Mon Sep 16, 2019, 04:20 PM - Edit history (1)

https://www.democraticunderground.com/100212467538

https://www.democraticunderground.com/100211637061

https://www.democraticunderground.com/100210981395

[ehrnst]

43. Actually, if you look at the very top at the left...

Last edited Mon Sep 16, 2019, 04:27 PM - Edit history (2)

You can see where to find a link to the rest of the feed:



Maybe you missed it? @BernieSanders

As a decent person, I try to help out when I see confusion.

It's on these other OPs, too, if you look closely.

https://www.democraticunderground.com/100212467538

https://www.democraticunderground.com/100211637061

https://www.democraticunderground.com/100210981395

You're welcome.

[question everything]

4. Ture, he never should have been nominated because of his opinions siding with the administration

This is what Klobuchar has been saying all along.

I think that trying to impeach him now is wasting time and energy and, really pandering. We have more important things to talk about.

[George II]

5. He's taking a beating on twitter as a result of that tweet. The biggest black mark against...

...Kavanaugh is that he's a sexual predator and a liar, yet all he cared about there is "Wall Street".

[mr_lebowski]

7. At the time he was NOMINATED, all that was known about was ... what Bernie said

People on twitter are idiots.

Also see post #1.

[George II]

11. His attacks on women were well known at the time he was nominated and more details...

..came out between the nomination and the Senate hearings.

[mr_lebowski]

14. See post 1 to see that Bernie made reference to what you're claiming he left out

in other tweets (which happened hours earlier).

On top of that, by far the most serious accusation, that of Ms. Ford, emerged DURING the hearings, or at least I'm pretty sure I remember that correctly.

[ehrnst]

26. "Siding with corporate power and Wall Street" is exactly why Trump nominates anyone.

That anyone would think that Trump ever thought for a minute that he "shouldn't" nominate anyone who sided with corporate power and Wall Street, hasn't been paying attention.

This is like saying, "Russia shouldn't have interfered to get him elected, because everyone knows that's wrong."

[sheshe2]

71. Meh.

That's just identity politics, don'tcha know.

[mr_lebowski]

6. Cheap shot (nt)

[Bluepinky]

13. Yep, some posters like the cheap shots, can't reason with 'em.

(I’ve tried in the past).

[treestar]

10. What case opinions does he mean

The law being applied could “side with Wall Street”. More information needed before running off with this one

[George II]

12. As Joe Biden would say, "A noun, a verb, and...." (fill in the blank)

[melman]

16. Sanders on Kavanaugh

Sanders Statement on Kavanaugh
Thursday, September 27, 2018
BURLINGTON, Vt., Sept. 27 – U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) issued the following statement Thursday after Judge Brett Kavanaugh and Dr. Christine Blasey Ford testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee:

"I listened to Dr. Ford, and I listened to Judge Kavanaugh. I believe Dr. Ford. Brett Kavanaugh does not belong on the Supreme Court.

"If Judge Kavanaugh wants to clear his name of these very serious charges he should immediately demand a thorough FBI investigation. If not, the Senate should reject his nomination."
https://www.sanders.senate.gov/newsroom/press-releases/sanders-statement-on-kavanaugh

Link to tweet

Link to tweet

--
OCTOBER 3, 2018
Senator Sanders on Kavanaugh Nomination
Senator Bernie Sanders (I-VT) spoke on the floor about Brett Kavanaugh’s Supreme Court nomination, specifically condemning President Trump’s remarks about Christine Blasey Ford, who has accused Judge Kavanaugh of sexual assault.

https://www.c-span.org/video/?452379-9/senator-sanders-kavanaugh-nomination

Link to tweet

--


Sanders Statement on Kavanaugh Cloture Vote
Friday, October 5, 2018
WASHINGTON, Oct. 5 – Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) issued the following statement Friday after the Senate voted 51-49 to advance Brett Kavanaugh's nomination to the U.S. Supreme Court:

"I voted against proceeding on Judge Kavanaugh’s confirmation for a number of reasons.

"First, I have no doubt that Kavanaugh will become a part of the hard-right majority on the Supreme Court which has cast decision after decision in favor of the wealthy and the powerful and against the needs of working families, women, the environment, campaign finance reform, children and the poor.

"Second, there are very credible allegations of sexual assault which I believe have not been fully investigated. Dr. Christine Blasey Ford courageously testified last week about being sexually assaulted by Brett Kavanaugh. Yet, she has since been mocked by President Trump and the FBI under the White House’s direction did a much too limited investigation. They did not even interview Judge Kavanaugh or Dr. Ford. How can you have an investigation of a potential crime and not talk to one of the victims?

"Third, I think the evidence is clear that on a number of occasions Judge Kavanaugh has not told the truth to the Judiciary Committee regarding a wide variety of issues. Regardless of philosophy, it is not acceptable that somebody appointed to the Supreme Court lie to the U.S. Congress.

"In our nation’s history, only 113 people have served on the Supreme Court. Judge Kavanaugh is not worthy of joining those ranks and receiving a lifetime appointment on the court."
https://www.sanders.senate.gov/newsroom/press-releases/sanders-statement-on-kavanaugh-cloture-vote

----

What an unbelievably sleazy and dishonest thread. If the OP had any sense of decency they would promptly delete. I won't hold my breath.

[ehrnst]

39. Well then...

[BlueMississippi]

68. That post is too long

What is the keyword there?

[sheshe2]

80. You made your case with your post.

There was no need for your comment at the end.

Here:

melman
16. Sanders on Kavanaugh

What an unbelievably sleazy and dishonest thread. If the OP had any sense of decency they would promptly delete. I won't hold my breath.

You not only called out the Op, you called out posters on this thread that you disagree with "sleazy and dishonest". You go on to say they have "no decency." Your comment is OTT and not what this community is about. You are not DU'ing well, melman. I suggest that you are the one that should delete their comment and let your post stand on it's own.

[Cuthbert Allgood]

102. Did you say that to those who said Sanders ignored the sexual assault? Hold on, I'll scroll & check.

Nope, you didn't.

Perhaps you might want to, now that you know Sanders did, in fact, address the allegations of sexual assault as well as the other, myriad, problems with Kavanaugh.

I'm sure you won't, though.

[ehrnst]

104. Whataboutery. (nt)

[Cuthbert Allgood]

105. I don't think that word means what you think it means.

Or is it OK to make a claim that Sanders didn't address the sexual assault when he, in fact did?

[ehrnst]

107. It means what I think it means.

"the practice of responding to a difficult question or problem by raising another difficult question or problem, in order to move attention away from the original question."

[Cuthbert Allgood]

111. Not what happened, though, Humpty Dumpty.

I asked if she held the same standard of calling out bad practice to the others in the thread. That isn't me responding to any question to me. It's me asking if that person is going to be consistent. Apparently the answer is no, though there is still time, I guess.

For the likely jury: The "Humpty Dumpty" comment is in response to the "it means what I think it means" which is pretty much a paraphrase of Humpty's line from Alice in Wonderland.

[ehrnst]

114. Not what happened. I was correcting your statement that the word didn't mean what I think it meant.

Last edited Wed Sep 18, 2019, 06:56 AM - Edit history (1)

Here it is what you said, in case you forgot:



Another quote from Alice in Wonderland:



You seem to feel a need to ignore that I provided the dictionary defintion to show the source of my understanding of the word, indicating that it was not me that was determining the meaning. That was the entire point of my post. Perhaps you responded before you had a chance to read what you were responding to. That's not a good idea, especially when one is attempting to make someone else look foolish. It can backfire spectacularly.

Here it is again for your convenience:



Or perhaps this was your problem:

Eisegesis (/ˌaɪsɪˈdʒiːsɪs/) is the process of interpreting text in such a way as to introduce one's own presuppositions, agendas or biases. It is commonly referred to as reading into the text.

You're welcome.

[Cuthbert Allgood]

116. Yeah, but that's not what I was doing.

I see you didn't address that part of my point.

So, congrats, you got the dictionary definition of the word, but you applied it incorrectly. Have a pat on the back. And stop saying I'm doing something I'm not.

[ehrnst]

118. No, I didn't apply it incorrectly.

I rebutted your post accurately and in its entirety, which is why you are so put out.

[Cuthbert Allgood]

119. OK. If that makes you happy.

Just so we're clear:

1. People stated they were pissed with Sanders for not addressing the sexual harassment of Kavanaugh.
2. Multiple people point out that he did, in fact, address that.
3. People continue to ignore reality and get pissed at Sanders.
4. Someone says it's pretty shitty that people are ignoring this.
5. A poster comes in and tells that person that being rude is bad.
6. I ask that poster if they are going to point out the rudeness of the people calling out Sanders for incorrect reasons.

Apparently, in your world, that's whataboutism. It's patently not. All the screenshots and dictionary definitions in the world won't make it true.

[ehrnst]

120. OK. If that makes you happy.

All the numbered lists, references to Alice in Wonderland, and repeats of what you said before in the world won't make what you're posting about this any more accurate.

It can be frustrating for some when others just won't comply and tell you that you're right when you're not.

[Cuthbert Allgood]

121. So what was wrong about my recap.

And, assuming the recap isn't wrong, how is that whataboutism?

Interesting that you haven't answered that. You just have engaged in your own discussion about what you think happened. I have tried to respond to what you have said and show why that isn't what you say it is. Maybe I should do a tl;dr post about gaslighting. But I don't have the time or energy.

[ehrnst]

122. Read my replies. It's all there.

Accusing someone else of Gaslighting? That's what you're reduced to rebutting with?

[Cuthbert Allgood]

123. Actually I was saying that you reduced yourself to rebutting with whataboutism.

But apparently that went over your head.

[ehrnst]

124. No, you're just wrong about this, and I pointed that out.

I haven't complied with your directive that I take it back, and say that you are right and I am wrong, and that is frustrating you.

That won't change, no matter how much you keep trying.

[Cuthbert Allgood]

127. I don't care whether you do or not.

I knew going in you wouldn't. People reading this can see what happened.

And you think too highly of yourself that you think you could frustrate me. I, frankly, don't care enough to consider getting frustrated.

Go ahead and have the last word.

*insert passive-aggressive smilie here*

[ehrnst]

128. Apparently you care enough to keep on scolding me

which actually has the opposite effect of saving face.

[Cha]

112. You WIN!

[bahrbearian]

22. LOL

[ehrnst]

36. LOL.

Argument by Dismissal: An argument is rejected without saying why. The person who is rejecting the argument may have a good reason; they just refuse to share it. So we cannot assume that this is an error in reasoning. It could better be described as a conscious choice not to participate in the argument.

[bahrbearian]

42. LOL

[ehrnst]

44. Thanks for kicking the OP!

Argument by Dismissal: An argument is rejected without saying why. The person who is rejecting the argument may have a good reason; they just refuse to share it. So we cannot assume that this is an error in reasoning. It could better be described as a conscious choice not to participate in the argument.

[George II]

52. LOL

[Me.]

58. Here's Another For You

and a recce to boot

[ehrnst]

75. ...

[BlueMississippi]

48. This shows the tone-deafness glaringly

BS only has one issue and that is his hatred of rich people and corporations. He sees everything through that lens.

I won't be shocked if the next tweet is "Jeff Epstein should have been arrested a long time ago for being a hedge fund billionaire."

[Hortensis]

51. Lol! This! What he cares about is class warfare and "universal"

solutions. His vision is too large and important to be distracted from.

[redstatebluegirl]

54. Yes, no mention at all of the fact he sexually assaulted women!!!!

He is a one issue, tone deaf, guy who yells at the moon.

[TCJ70]

50. Twitter drama's a hell of a drug...

I'm not a Twitter user myself, though...it's a silly place.

Nevermind that he posted about the NYT story, new revelations, and his support for whatever actions can be taken in response 3 hours prior to the Tweet you're selectively choosing to highlight, right?

Link to tweet

Also, I think the part you highlighted is more of a statement that Kavanaugh isn't the kind of judge he would put forward given the opportunity. But whatever you have to do to cast Sanders in a bad light, yeah?

[ehrnst]

55. "But whatever you have to do to cast Sanders in a bad light, yeah?"

[Hassin Bin Sober]

59. Don't bother

[ehrnst]

66. I was wondering when you would finally join in!

[BannonsLiver]

79. This is actually disqualifying.

[ehrnst]

86. Concerning, even.

[mcar]

53. ...

[Joe941]

56. Its a tweet. You can't write a whole article guys. Bernie is certainly correct.

[ehrnst]

60. I think that Bernie has some bridges to build with certain demographics

And needs to be more aware of this.

[BlueMississippi]

61. lol

He couldn't have written 2 tweets? I have seen some people writing as many as 27 tweets, each numbered 1/27, 2/27. 3/27 etc.

Bernie blew it -- he missed the MOST SALIENT objections to Kavanaugh and went back to his one and only spiel of class warfare.

[ehrnst]

64. I have to wonder who he trusts for their political accumen,

and who he simply hired to give directives to.

[BlueMississippi]

65. It's all a Jill Stein monolithic existence

They all think and act alike.

If Sanders really had any sane and good advice, he would drop out of the race.

[ehrnst]

67. There are those that don't want advice.

Some require absolute affirmation and authority. Those who dissent in any way, no matter how valuable they have proven themselves to be, can expect to be dismissed.

[JackInGreen]

77. We need another alert heading

For purposefully offering partial information or playing games with posts, your tactics are nauseatingly Trumpian.

[ehrnst]

87. What could you possibly title your "new alert heading?"

[WhiskeyGrinder]

81. That's so Bernie.

[aidbo]

82. I think you left a few things out too.

Link to tweet

Link to tweet

[ehrnst]

85. That was Uncle Joe's post up top.

[aidbo]

92. Well i just wanted to reiterate your wrongness.

[ehrnst]

93. See my responses, along with others, that dispute your claim. (nt)

[aidbo]

94. I am making no claim except that you are misleading by omission.

[ehrnst]

95. No, I'm not. (nt)

[aidbo]

96. Yes, You did.

You posted a screen shot of a tweet without any context.

Have fun online today!

[ehrnst]

97. No, I didn't omit anything.

[ehrnst]

99. No. Not at all.

[George II]

100. "bro"?

[Cuthbert Allgood]

103. Did you see the responses above?

He didn't ignore women's issues. It's almost like you just want to dislike him and you'll make up reasons for it.

[lark]

106. I saw those and was going to delete it and got distracted. Will do it now.

No, I voted for him in the primary in 2016, then saw a lot of his people help drumpf win - then found out he had hired Manaforts' partner from the Ukraine even after it was known that Manafort was shilling for Russia. Then he hired Nina Simone for his 2020 campaign, knowing she helped install drumpf by voting Stein. I also disliked it when he returned to being a Democratic Socialist after running as a Democrat when it was convenient. For these reasons I dislike him. No one is perfect and my current preferred candidates issues could stop him. I (at this time) just think he has the best chance of winning and beating drumpf is everything. I will vote and work for whoever is the Dem. general candidate, I promise you that.

[HeartlandProgressive]

108. Biden's sister and Campaign Co-Chair is dismissing calls to impeach Kavanaugh.

And Biden supporters are defending that.

Double standard?

[ehrnst]

109. Whataboutery?

[HeartlandProgressive]

110. Hypocrisy?

People can't have it one way here and the opposite way elsewhere when it comes to a sexual predator on the Supreme Court.

That is called hypocrisy.

[ehrnst]

115. Here's the definition of Whataboutery:

whataboutery
NOUN

The technique or practice of responding to an accusation or difficult question by making a counter-accusation or raising a different issue.

https://www.lexico.com/en/definition/whataboutery

In this case it would be responding to something you didn't like being said about Senator Sanders, with a "what about" Biden?" attempt to change the topic.

Here's an example: when one talks about Trump lying about something, and a RW'er says "Hypocrite! What about Obama lying when he said 'if you like your insurance, you can keep your insurance? People can't have it one way here and the opposite way elsewhere when it comes to lying," when neither Obama nor the ACA was ever part of the conversation. They are simply trying change the issue by accusing someone of

Is that clearer?

People can't have it one way here and the opposite way elsewhere when it comes to a sexual predator on the Supreme Court.

Where is "here" and when did I have something "the opposite way" somewhere else? Because lacking that, there isn't any hypocrisy on my part, is there? It becomes whataboutery on your part.

If you have problems with 'people' saying things 'the opposite way' about Biden, tell them about it. Trying to make this thread about that in order to rant is just whataboutism.

You're welcome.

[HeartlandProgressive]

125. It is never "whataboutism" to point out hypocrisy

Call it what you will: whataboutism, moral equivalence, two-wrongs. There are a thousand names for it, but one idea: my side is not subject to the same moral laws as the other guy. There are excusing factors. The gigantic scale of the other guy’s mistakes make mine irrelevant.

But this is nonsense. “Whataboutism” is a propaganda term. There’s not one law for the goose and one for the gander. Moral rules apply across the board. That’s what makes them rules. Crime is crime. Hypocrisy is hypocrisy, wherever it applies.

Rational people understand this, at least on the domestic front. If it’s wrong when Trump does it, it’s wrong when Obama does it. If Trump’s sexual predations are wrong, then Bill Clinton’s predations are wrong. If it’s wrong when Sheldon Adelson uses money to buy an election, then it is wrong when George Soros buys an election.

https://www.pastemagazine.com/articles/2018/08/theres-no-such-thing-as-whataboutism.html

So, again, hypocrisy?

Seems readily apparent in this thread.

[ehrnst]

126. You failed to identify the actual hypocrisy you claim to have shone a light on.

Last edited Wed Sep 18, 2019, 11:13 AM - Edit history (2)

Here it is another opportunity:

Where is "here" and when did I have something "the opposite way" somewhere else? Because lacking that, there isn't any hypocrisy on my part, is there? It becomes whataboutery on your part.

If you have problems with 'people' saying things 'the opposite way' about Biden, tell them about it. Trying to make this thread about that in order to rant is just whataboutism.

Or maybe you're just confusing this thread with another one where I haven't posted or made any commentary:

https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1287&pid=283811

Attacking the OP about a Sanders tweet, along with all the people on this thread for NOT making it about complaining about Joe Biden's sister is really the definition of whataboutery.


You're welcome.

[HeartlandProgressive]

130. "Joe Biden's sister dismisses calls for Justice Kavanaugh's impeachment"

people condemn Sanders for not calling out Kavanaugh as a sexual predator

while defending Biden's campaign co-chair, who happens to be his sister, for dismissing calls to impeach Kavanaugh, saying "I don't think any of us are in a position to point a finger, make a judgment," she said.

Joe Biden's sister dismisses calls for Justice Kavanaugh's impeachment
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/joe-bidens-sister-dismisses-calls-for-justice-kavanaughs-impeachment/

Hypocrisy and Selective outrage?

hy·poc·ri·sy
/həˈpäkrəsē/

the practice of claiming to have moral standards or beliefs to which one's own behavior does not conform; pretense.

Selective Outrage:

There is a new malady sweeping the land, one so widespread and corrosive that it is rapidly becoming a serious epidemic. It strikes with increasing frequency, leaving its victims babbling incoherently. And while it makes no distinction between young and old, it does seem to hit those on the Left with particular ferocity.

It is what I call Selective Outrage Syndrome, or SOS, and the symptoms are really quite obvious: applying a selective double-standard in matters relating to human rights and politics.

Why would anyone continue to defend a double standard? If it's bad for one person not to condemn Kavanaugh as the sexual predator he is, it's also bad when another politician does the same.

Thank you for the opportunity allowing me to make this point so clearly.

[ehrnst]

131. So what does that have to do with this thread? Who here is even talking about Biden?

Last edited Wed Sep 18, 2019, 11:43 AM - Edit history (2)

Perhaps you confused this thread with another one. Not seeing anything about Biden on this thread, let alone anything about defending his sister's statements, so trying redirect to make Biden and his sister the focus, is whataboutism.

https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1287&pid=283811

Continuing to claim that this thread is somehow hypocritical for "not going negative on Biden" is attacking a straw man.

Hypocrisy is scolding others for making "negative posts about a Democratic candidate," then trying to change the topic of a thread to accuse people of not talking negatively about a candidate in a thread that's not about that candidate.

[HeartlandProgressive]

132. Hypocrisy and selective outrage confirmed?

this thread singles out Sanders campaign for the same thing the Biden campaign is doing.

that is what makes it, at best, selective outrage.

Clearly.

Thanks again for allowing me to point out such a clear cut case of selective outrage being used for political ends.

I am off to work.

Enjoy your morning!

[ehrnst]

133. So, whataboutism for divisive political ends is confirmed?

Last edited Wed Sep 18, 2019, 11:25 AM - Edit history (3)

Thank you for finally acknowledging that there is no hypocrisy in this thread or my OP, because no one here - other than you - is even talking about Biden, let alone defending him.

Scolding people about being "negative about a Democratic candidate" then turning around and being outraged that another thread is failing to lambaste a Democratic candidate that isn't even the topic of the thread is what is, clearly, at best, selective outrage.





THAT is what I would call Selective Outrage Syndrome, or SOS, and the symptoms are really quite obvious: applying a selective double-standard to "negative posts about Democratic candidates" when it comes to one's favorites.

Why would anyone continue to defend a double standard? If one decries that we should not be posting anything negative about Democratic Candidates, it's also bad when that same person posts negative things about Democratic Candidates. Why not simply post something positive about your preferred candidate, instead of running another candidate down, indeed?

Thanks for allowing me to point out two sterling examples of as you put it, "selective outrage being used for political ends," so clearly. Hypocrisy, as you so clearly defined in your post seems to be indicated as well.



Welcome to DU.

[HeartlandProgressive]

135. why don't you post something positive about your own candidate?

this selective outrage thread just helps tRump.

Pointing out selective outrage, as evidenced in this thread, is not "asking people to bash other democrats".

it's even hard to call that bad logic because it's so far from being logical at all.

there is simply no point to continue.

[George II]

136. You've been here barely a month and you're telling longtime members what/how to post?

Senator Sanders has a word for that.

[HeartlandProgressive]

138. just returning the favor

Star Member ehrnst (24,471 posts)

43. Why don't you just post something positive about your preferred candidate?

See what I'm talking about?

https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1287&pid=286337

do newer posters have to wear a freshman beanie or something too?

[ehrnst]

137. Nice pivot there.

Once you've been presented with examples of your very own double standards, and selective outrage about people "posting negative things about candidates," you're folding your hand, pushing away from the table, and accusing people who called your bluff of "helping Trump."

Welcome to DU.

[HeartlandProgressive]

139. if you say so...

[ehrnst]

140. You seem to be the expert.

People can't have it one way here and the opposite way elsewhere

https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1287&pid=285700

[HeartlandProgressive]

141. you are too modest, you know best

[ehrnst]

142. Just shining a light on a double standard.

[HeartlandProgressive]

145. Be careful, do not let that bright light hurt your eyes.

[ehrnst]

146. That really stung didn't it?

Well, you're new, and you'll learn that when a DU'er criticizes someone else for something they themselves do, they get called out on it.

It helps to have a sense of humor about yourself if it happens to you. And now it has. You'll be fine.

[HeartlandProgressive]

147. Ouch! I was called "new" again. lol

Who hands out the freshman beanies?



A question to get back on topic, what do they call it when someone is outraged about something one candidate supposedly does and they ignore when another candidate does the same thing?

There was a lot of that going on in this thread, wasn't there?

[ehrnst]

148. Like I said, you'll be fine.

Being thin skinned won't do you any favors, though.

[HeartlandProgressive]

149. resorting to name calling? "Being thin skinned won't do you any favors, though."

that means I won this debate, correct?

I guess so.

[ehrnst]

150. Needling:

Needling: simply attempting to make the other person angry, without trying to address the argument at hand. Sometimes this is a delaying tactic.

Also doesn't really do one's credibility on one's point any favors. Just some friendly advice from someone who's been here awhile.

And thanks for keeping the thread kicked!

[ehrnst]

129. Hypocrisy?

HeartlandProgressive (80 posts)

78. another negative post about a Democratic candidate?

why?

https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1287&pid=270679

[Cha]

113. I think kavanaugh should be impeached.

[ehrnst]

117. Yes, once we have a Dem Senate and POTUS who will nominate Garland. (nt)

[George II]

134. So? What's your point?

[Sapient Donkey]

143. I saw this unfold on twitter, and it was not a fair take on what Sanders said

He made several tweets in that thread one after another to complete his entire thought. We're literally talking about people being angry because he didn't order his sentences in a way they deemed acceptable. And since this is twitter, we're actually talking about a total of like maybe 10 sentences over several posts.

I find it rather silly we're at a point in which we expect only simple and unnuanced thought that can easily fit within 280 characters. Unless we really want Trump's level of "thought" to be the norm. "Kavanaugh is a bad bad man. Rapist, Wall Street insider, fundamentalist. Bad. Wrong! #ImpeachTheKav" That's not really what I want from our people. I dunno, if you're not a sanders fan then there are plenty of policy issues you can bring up. I don't see why this sort of stuff is necessary. I get it that his fanboy attack dogs like Sirota do this sort of stuff, but it's wrong when people like him do it too.

[Sapient Donkey]

144. This is what his post would like in non-twitter form.

As a federal judge who overwhelmingly sided with corporate power and Wall Street, Brett Kavanaugh should never have been nominated. Supreme Court justices are not above the law. Someone who sits in judgment over the nation should have the highest integrity. The revelations today confirm what we already knew: During his hearing, Kavanaugh faced credible accusations and likely lied to Congress. I support any appropriate constitutional mechanism to hold him accountable.