And cherry picking too. — NOS4A2

Please provide details and source material to support this accusation.

Here you go, padding your thought with the thought of someone else’s, — NOS4A2

In intellectual circles, we call it "providing source material." A notion obviously offensive you - and to Trumpsters in general.

Please provide details and source material to support this accusation.

“Proving the double standard about withholding aid...is the easy part.”

Can you provide a reference detailing the scope and substance of "Schiff's lies?"

His question begging, for one.

His lie that his committee had no contact with the whistleblower.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2019/10/04/schiffs-false-claim-his-committee-had-not-spoken-whistleblower/

His lies about Parnas

https://www.politico.com/news/2020/01/21/schiff-parnas-trump-evidence-101832

His lie about the Trump’s phone call is the obvious one.

like a good parrot — NOS4A2

Parroting involves repeating transfactual, emotion-laden statements popularized by the mass media - in your case Fox News.

Parroting involves repeating transfactual, emotion-laden statements popularized by the mass media - in your case Fox News.

Let me know when you can muster your own thought. I don’t watch Fox News; you do.

I don’t watch Fox News... — NOS4A2

I don't believe you.

His lie about the Trump’s phone call is the obvious one. — NOS4A2

Can you provide a reference for this assertion?

I don't believe you.

I don’t care.

Here’s Schiff being duped by Ukrainians into wanting nude pictures of Trump—political dirt.

don’t care.

Here’s Schiff being duped by Ukrainians into wanting nude pictures of Trump—political dirt. — NOS4A2

Yeah, I've seen it. It's troublesome.

It's also whataboutism. A logical fallacy.

Yeah, I've seen it. It's troublesome.

It's also whataboutism. A logical fallacy.

It’s not whataboutism to point out Schiff’s hypocrisy.

Schiff’s — NOS4A2

This impeachment isn't about Schiff. It's about the facts.

Like every politician, Schiff is a hypocrite. So was Obama, the Bushes, the Clintons, and respective meinies. Does that mean Trump is above the law?

not whataboutism — NOS4A2

Directing your interlocutor from the facts of the case to the personalities presenting the facts is whataboutism par excellence.


"Trump committed act X."

"What about Schiff?"

This impeachment isn't about Schiff. It's about the facts.

Like every politician, Schiff is a hypocrite. So was Obama, the Bushes, the Clintons, and respective meinies. Does that mean Trump is above the law?

That’s whataboutism, a logical fallacy.

Schiff is the prosecution and he is lying in order to impeach a president. He lied to Congress with his “parody”. He lied about his ties to the whistleblower. He’s lying that Trump is “corruptly” doing this or that,

Directing your interlocutor from the facts of the case to the personalities presenting the facts is whataboutism par excellence.


"Trump committed act X."

"What about Schiff?"

I never said that. Another lie. Trump never did what Schiff did.

Schiff is the prosecution — NOS4A2

Schiff is a small part of the prosecution. The evidence was presented by a slue or host of non-Schiffs. Speak to the evidence. Speak to the facts. If you can.

never said that — NOS4A2

In discussing Trump's impeachment you pointed me to Schiff’s hypocrisy.

That's the same as saying, "What about Schiff?"

Whataboutism. Look it up.

"Whataboutism, also known as whataboutery, is a variant of the tu quoque logical fallacy that attempts to discredit an opponent's position by charging them with hypocrisy without directly refuting or disproving their argument. It is particularly associated with Soviet and Russian propaganda."

You look it up. I have not charged you with hypocrisy to discredit your position. Another lie.

You look it up. I have not charged you with hypocrisy to discredit your position. Another lie. — NOS4A2

You either don't understand whataboutism or you're running on emotional fumes.

I have not charged you with hypocrisy to discredit your position. — NOS4A2

Instead of addressing the facts of the case (Trump's impeachment) you've accused Schiff of hypocrisy.

That's exactly whataboutism.

That’s whataboutism, a logical fallacy. — NOS4A2

It's not. Look it up.

"Whataboutism, also known as whataboutery, is a variant of the tu quoque logical fallacy that attempts to discredit an opponent's position by charging them with hypocrisy without directly refuting or disproving their argument."

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism

You either don't understand whataboutism or you're running on emotional fumes.

Instead of addressing the facts of the case (Trump's impeachment) you've accused Schiff of hypocrisy.

That's exactly whataboutism.

I merely showed that Schiff sought Russian political dirt on his opponent. I did so after spending countless pages addressing the case and refuting Schiff’s arguments.

When I presented Schiff’s hypocrisy you said “Like every politician, Schiff is a hypocrite. So was Obama, the Bushes, the Clintons, and respective meinies.”, presumably to discredit my argument.

Is that not whataboutism?

that not whataboutism? — NOS4A2

No, it's not. It's anti-whataboutism.

The fact that X, Y and Z are hypocritical has nothing to do with A.

In this case A is the case against Trump.

Is that not whataboutism? — NOS4A2

To avoid whataboutism:

Instead of thinking of the impeachment as a kind of contest between Schiff and Trump, think of it as a contest between Trump and the facts.

Trump was trying to manufacture dirt by way of a public statement from Ukraine's president.

Creating fictitious dirt isnt a new activity in American politics. Its just been so long ago that it happened that we're all aghast.

Trump was trying to manufacture dirt by way of a public statement from Ukraine's president.

Creating fictitious dirt isnt a new activity in American politics. Its just been so long ago that it happened that we're all aghast.

That's the argument. But no evidence points to any mens rea. Given that no public statement of that nature occurred, that no investigations against political opponents were started, that no such "dirt" was produced, that no statement from Trump proves his desires to do this, and that Trump has taken issues with corruption in Ukraine going back to 2017, proving a guilty mind or intent to produce political dirt for the purposes of influencing an election is nearly impossible. Given this, we can say that this assumption is fabricated from thin air.

Its just been so long ago that it happened that we're all aghast. — frank

Not so long ago. Certainly there was a massive amount of anti-Soviet dirt, anti-Islamic dirt, etc. I think it's just something we do. Occasionally, the political climate is such that the perpetrators are held to account.

Given this, we can say that this assumption is fabricated from thin air. — NOS4A2

Simple deduction. Even a fucking retard like me can see it.

Certainly there was a massive amount of anti-Soviet dirt, anti-Islamic dirt, etc. I — ZzzoneiroCosm

There was never any need to lie about the Soviets.

Occasionally, the political climate is such that the perpetrators are held to account. — ZzzoneiroCosm

Yet he won't be. How do you explain that?

Yet he won't be. How do you explain that? — frank

We'll see.

Political tribalism.