Good call.In the context of business and government he has shown great respect and has empowered women rather than objectifying them.
2nd article is cherry picked from a point in time where two female members of the administration left to goon to bigger and better things
Nobody's perfect, amirite?2nd article is cherry picked from a point in time where two female members of the administration left to goon to bigger and better things
1st article - nobody’s perfect, but this is also a hot button political issue where people should be able to disagree and not be called a sexist
I could just as easily point out how sexual harassment was rampant in the EPA and FBI under Obama and the administration looked the other way....
That's what bothers me the most about it. It's a content-free way to poke holes in someone's argument without being forced to actually address the substance.With all due respect I absolutely think ‘hypocrisy’ is one of the worst buzzwords for deflection in modern politics. It results in nullification of everything and nihilism in every discussion.
Please just speak in positive values. What do you believe in, why, and how is that evident in what’s going on.
See, this is a small example of what I was getting at in my previous post. I don't think it's fine. I think it's horrendous that people could still support him after hearing that tape. Period. Full stop.I mean you don't have to be upset by it, but any way you slice it, it's clearly hypocritical.
We all heard him talking about grabbing you-know-whats.
If you want to support him after that, fine. But you don't get to play the "family values" card anymore.
It's ok, I don't think it's fine either.See, this is a small example of what I was getting at in my previous post. I don't think it's fine. I think it's horrendous that people could still support him after hearing that tape. Period. Full stop.
Not trying to single you out. People say stuff like that all the time. But IMO supporting someone who would say those things is bad whether you claim to support family values or not.
I don't have any problems with somebody telling Al Gore to piss off about climate change or any other politician that preaches about changing things that they themselves do.That's what bothers me the most about it. It's a content-free way to poke holes in someone's argument without being forced to actually address the substance.
My go-to example -- I'm pretty sure I've posted this in multiple threads over the years, so apologies if you've heard it before -- is the accusations of hypocrisy thrown at environmentalists like Al Gore for flying on airplanes or living in homes. If you're judging everyone solely in terms of hypocrisy, then that automatically makes Gore worse than, say, the Koch brothers, who are at least "consistent" in downplaying the significance of climate change while also spending gobs of money to ensure our political system doesn't do anything about it. But if you actually engage with the substance of the issue and believe (as nearly all scientists do) that CC represents an existential threat to the human race, then the Kochs are by no means "better" than Gore, they are orders of magnitude worse.
Avoiding taking positions on these types of issues benefits a) partisans who might not want to engage on issues where they're clearly out of step with public opinion and/or reality, and b) the media, which wants to avoid accusations of bias but has no problem offering opinions on "process" arguments like whether someone is being hypocritical.
I think we're in agreement. Yes, Gore should be subject to criticism if he's not practicing what he preaches. What bothers me is a) as you say, people often use that as an excuse to avoid discussing the underlying issue, and b) we so fetishize intellectual consistency that we treat what Gore is doing as worse than what the Kochs are doing. Gore is bad, but the Kochs are way, way worse.I don't have any problems with somebody telling Al Gore to piss off about climate change or any other politician that preaches about changing things that they themselves do.
I also don't have to listen to proponents of those politicians using their public positions on subjects to prop up said candidates.
What wouldn't be fair is if you and I were having a discussion about climate change and I used Al Gore's huge house as a way to shout you down.
I don’t see how it’s hypocritical for Franklin Graham to support an imperfect man, who is trying to advance policy that he and those of a similar mindset support, when one of he and his supporters core beliefs is that ALL people are imperfect, while simultaneously speaking out against cultural messages that push society towards things that run counter to his beliefs.Nobody's perfect, amirite?
I agree with this take.I don’t see how it’s hypocritical for Franklin Graham to support an imperfect man, who is trying to advance policy that he and those of a similar mindset support, when one of he and his supporters core beliefs is that ALL people are imperfect, while simultaneously speaking out against cultural messages that push society towards things that run counter to his beliefs.Nobody's perfect, amirite?
A billion times thisWith all due respect I absolutely think ‘hypocrisy’ is one of the worst buzzwords for deflection in modern politics. It results in nullification of everything and nihilism in every discussion.
Please just speak in positive values. What do you believe in, why, and how is that evident in what’s going on.
Curious, what's the cultural message sent when someone supports a guy that claims he "grabs 'em by the %$#^" to be President of the United States?I don’t see how it’s hypocritical for Franklin Graham to support an imperfect man, who is trying to advance policy that he and those of a similar mindset support, when one of he and his supporters core beliefs is that ALL people are imperfect, while simultaneously speaking out against cultural messages that push society towards things that run counter to his beliefs.
Trump apologized for saying that and is not promoting that people “just grab em by the ####”Curious, what's the cultural message sent when someone supports a guy that claims he "grabs 'em by the %$#^" to be President of the United States?
Isn't Graham sending the message that that kind of behavior is not only acceptable, but worthy of the President?
And then he reneged on his apology and suggested it wasn't him on the tape.Trump apologized for saying that and is not promoting that people “just grab em by the ####”
Isnt this why we needed oversight?urbanhack said:Can we talk now?
Three Kushner family enterprises received PPP loans, so did the Daily Caller, Newsmax, Grover Norquist, and David Bossie. Millions of taxpayer dollars funneled directly to Trump family and political interests.
Isnt that why we should have had oversight? That the administration and republicans fought against?Bofff Sidezzz got a good bite out of that PPP apple
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/biden-founded-law-firm-company-pelosi-ppp-funds
Who’s picking the oversight team? It’s a rigged game regardlessIsnt that why we should have had oversight? That the administration and republicans fought against?
Pretty sure it would have been congressionally done...or though an IG. So bipartisan and fair.Who’s picking the oversight team? It’s a rigged game regardless
You have more faith in Congress than most.Pretty sure it would have been congressionally done...or though an IG. So bipartisan and fair.
More faith than i have in the administration that is for sure.You have more faith in Congress than most.
Not quite though...Biden's former firm...of which he has no interest. And he has zero power.In a nutshell, it's about world view. The end justifies the means for both "sides" in our country. When you think the other side in completely missing the point, you overlook things on your side......the media, and constant propoganda we are fed only widens the gap.
ClintonsNot quite though...Biden's former firm...of which he has no interest. And he has zero power.
Comparable to Kushner family businesses?
This firm involved Biden in 1971.... I wish you'd take an opportunity to talk about law firms and lobbying shops getting PPP and what that means about the Swamp, but nah.Bofff Sidezzz got a good bite out of that PPP apple
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/biden-founded-law-firm-company-pelosi-ppp-funds
Good call. Democrats don't have any political interests at all. It's almost like they're angelic with how they behave themselves. They don't give money or get money at all. They're always honest.urbanhack said:Can we talk now?
Three Kushner family enterprises received PPP loans, so did the Daily Caller, Newsmax, Grover Norquist, and David Bossie. Millions of taxpayer dollars funneled directly to Trump family and political interests.
Pelosi’s husband?Not quite though...Biden's former firm...of which he has no interest. And he has zero power.
Comparable to Kushner family businesses?
Again Kushner family owned businesses vs a 1971 law firm connection and one of a million companies Pelosi's husband has an investment in.Pelosi’s husband?
Again Kushner family owned businesses vs a 1971 law firm connection and one of a million companies Pelosi's husband has an investment in.
This is the equivalency you're trying to draw? And it was Trump's admin who refused over site.
There's no spinning this blatant corruption.
So?urbanhack said:Can we talk now?
Three Kushner family enterprises received PPP loans, so did the Daily Caller, Newsmax, Grover Norquist, and David Bossie. Millions of taxpayer dollars funneled directly to Trump family and political interests.
An investor in a company...and yes...even that has the bad appearance. Which is why oversight was needed...you know, that thing I first said...that Trump said he would not comply with when all of this stuff was being discussed?Pelosi’s husband?
How is Media Matters the same? Do they have any power in this administration? That is comparable to Kushner's family? Really?https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2020/07/06/media-matters-took-in-up-to-2-million-in-small-business-relief-loans/
All sides that had connections got to get first slops from the troughs. I know I know <insert banned 3 letter acronym>
So there is evidence they did not qualify for these loans but received them anyways?Again Kushner family owned businesses vs a 1971 law firm connection and one of a million companies Pelosi's husband has an investment in.
This is the equivalency you're trying to draw? And it was Trump's admin who refused over site.
There's no spinning this blatant corruption.
A lot of small businesses either didn’t get loans or had significant delays in getting the money. These businesses may go out of business if they don’t get the loans, is the same true about the big politically connected ones?
This is spot on.It's supposed to be about ***Payroll*** Protection. - I don't know where the hypocrisy comes in except that either "side" will be able to find abuse by the other side, so claiming this is abuse by one party or the other will bound to be met with howls. The real problem is the lack of oversight by the administration and the fact they tried to hide these results from becoming public in the first place.
So take it up with the people who created the program.A lot of small businesses either didn’t get loans or had significant delays in getting the money. These businesses may go out of business if they don’t get the loans, is the same true about the big politically connected ones?
Of course they need it but don’t you think it would be better if all the small businesses were taken care of first? I’d rather have the small businesses taken care of and have a smaller total amount used so that a second bill is a possibility for states that have to shut down again.
I think that is the point...the creation and then fighting oversight and release of the data...its not just one place that deserves criticism here.So take it up with the people who created the program.
Sorry, should have been more detailed about point out the hypocrisy.
Again, so?Sorry, should have been more detailed about point out the hypocrisy.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/andrewsolender/2020/07/06/vocal-opponents-of-federal-spending-took-ppp-loans-including-ayn-rand-institute-grover-norquist-group/#773896073d53
Opting out of SS for most people is a terrible idea. I'll bet if you run the numbers you'll find that your return is pretty close to historical market returns.Again, so?
I oppose Social Security. I would be significantly wealthier today if I had been allowed to opt-out when I was in my 20s and wished to do so. I would like to give my children the ability to opt out. But being stuck in a world that forces me to contribute to a negative-real-return pension system, I'm going to cash my Social Security check without remorse. What's the problem?
Because they have swallowed the revisionist history that the Civil War was about states' rights.I don't know if this belongs in the hypocrisy thread, but can someone explain to me why some of the same people who self-identify as "patriots" are vehemently defending monuments of traitors to this country?