Militia seizes Federal building

Why is his point valid, then?

 

No, but he would toss rolls of paper towels at them.

 

His point is that YOU only care about something because of who it is that's doing it.

 

And that is a valid point somehow?

 

Yes.

 

The issue was not the larger issue of pardons, commutations and clemencies. It was the Bundys and and how this President has used pardons. What other Presidents did is irrelevant.

 

To them! Not at them.

 

You have the right to choose your issue. YF has the right to choose his.

 

"I'm fairly learned when it comes to logical fallacies ... I'm no RickStain, but who is? ... and I'm pretty sure that "whataboutism" has yet to be classified as an official one" ~ DQ

It's not. It's just a shitty debating tactic.

 

If one wants to argue YF's assertion that the FALN pardons and these pardons are exactly the same, try this.

- The FALN pardons came at the end of Clinton's second term. As is the tradition. Not in the second year of his first term. Trump seems to be jumping the gun on pardons - perhaps as a signal to his employees and former employees that they should keep their mouths shut. Perhaps not.

- Everyone pardoned had already served long jail sentences. How long were the Hammond in the pokey?

- Not all pardons are created equal. Each should be judged on the merits. The FALN clemency was conditional.

 

Then one is a cotton-headed ninnymuggins ...

 

OK. So, tell me why democrats, liberals, and male feminists in Hollywood are outraged by "kids in cages" under Trump, but weren't when Obama put them in cages.

Why is there outrage on all kinds of things when Trump does them, but not when previous presidents did the exact same thing -- from travel bans, to tariffs, to deportations, to commutations/pardons, folks like to pretend everything Trump does in unprecedented. But, they're not unprecedented. Only the outrage is.