Social Media Torches Trump for Thumbs Up-Obama did Same

Fox

Tue, Feb 20 2018, 12:18 pm

I think this has nothing to do with Trump and only a little to do with the polarized political climate.

I think we're hearing the simultaneous death throes of traditional news gatekeepers (the "mainstream media") and the labor & delivery cacophony of emerging sources of news and opinion.

Traditional media, both print and broadcast, simply became accustomed to being able to direct the national conversation. In fact, the whole concept of advocacy journalism is really nothing more than reporters telling people what's most important and what to think and/or do about it. They had no serious competition, because it's not so easy to just go out and start a newspaper, a radio station, or a TV news outlet. You need pretty deep pockets.

Along comes Internet and small, inexpensive ways to film, record, and upload news and opinions on current events. Even a high school kid can be a reporter or a pundit. And what we've discovered is that a lot of high school kids or similarly "unqualified" journalists do a better job than those employed by the big-name media.

In the process, they've exposed the incestuous nature of the news industry -- its lack of diversity; its urban bias; and its arrogance.

So we shouldn't be surprised that mainstream media is flailing in all directions and howling in pain, eager to lash out like a wounded animal.

At the same time, the Internet allows everyone to voice his/her opinion, and some of those opinions are . . . stupid. Not only are some of the opinions stupid, people are perfectly free to respond stupidly. Those of us with a libertarian bent believe that the marketplace of ideas eventually washes stupidity away. Right now, however, there haven't been quite enough wash cycles.

It's a good thing, IMHO, that the business of news and opinion has been democratized. In fact, there hasn't been such a huge development in the the transmission of information since Gutenberg's printing press. That said, we're currently in a stage where there's a little more democracy than anyone really wants.

SixOfWands

Tue, Feb 20 2018, 12:38 pm

Jeanette wrote:

It's not just about what he did at the hospital. He spent the next two days tweeting nonsense about Russia, about Obama, about Hillary. His only comments on the shooting were to blame the FBI for investigating Russia instead of following up on the shooter. As if he's unaware that the counterintelligence division of the FBI is not the same as the local field office.

The right wing media is already cooking up wild conspiracy theories that the Stoneman Douglas students now stepping up and leading nationwide protests are being manipulated by outside agitators. It's too scary for them to confront the fact that there's a young, smart, energized generation coming up that sees through all the garbage and knows the emperor has no clothes. Nothing will stop them.

BTW you should read more about why gun control legislation failed after Sandy Hook. Hint: which branch of government has the job of writing laws, I.e. legislating? Also, if you maintain that it was an Obama failure not to pass gun control, then surely a Republican led Congress is working hard to rectify that failure, correct?

Its called having a "tin ear." Trump doesn't understand how certain of his statements or actions will be perceived.

Of course, Trump said, "I could stand in the middle of 5th Avenue and shoot somebody and I wouldn’t lose voters." He was right. While 14-year-old Alaina Petty and 15-year-old Luke Hoyer were being buried, he played golf about an hour away. And the only response I hear from conservatives is "but Obama ....." (ETA ... no, really. I read one conservative contrast Trump to Obama by saying, "all Obama did after Sandy Hook was play golf.")

Fox

Tue, Feb 20 2018, 1:09 pm

SixOfWands wrote:

And the only response I hear from conservatives is "but Obama ....." (ETA ... no, really. I read one conservative contrast Trump to Obama by saying, "all Obama did after Sandy Hook was play golf.")

I don't really understand why people consider "what about-ism" to be an illegitimate response.

If the argument is, for example, that Presidents shouldn't appear in public recreation within X days after highly-publicized tragedies and that to do so shows an obvious deficiency of judgment, then we are to assume that applies to all Presidents.

And if the argument claims that this is a simple matter of common sense or dignity, then it would apply to all Presidents, past and future.

So if evidence exists that, in fact, various Presidents -- even in recent years -- did not observe this "rule," then there are only a few honest responses from whoever is making the argument:

1. Yes, the previous President was wrong to have done so, and he should have been criticized.

2. Yes, the previous President was wrong to have done so, and the media should not have covered up or glossed over his lapse in judgment.

3. Yes, previous Presidents may have behaved differently, but we need to rethink how Presidents handle these situations in the future.

"What about-ism" is not really concerned with when Presidents should or shouldn't engage in recreation or whatever the topic is. It's simply pointing out a double-standard.

So when people complain about "what about" responses, I don't understand their point. Are they saying, "Yes, there's a double-standard, but I don't care" or are they saying, "I'm annoyed that you noticed the double-standard"?

Jeanette

Tue, Feb 20 2018, 4:50 pm

Fox wrote:

Here are a few reasons why "whataboutism" is an illegitimate form of argument:

1. The examples used by the "whataboutist" are very often not comparable in scale, magnitude or context, and may even be outright lies. If you take the bait you end up falling down a rabbit hole arguing about the behavior of someone, anyone else rather than holding the president responsible for his own behavior.

in this particular context, I'd say that the president's response to this shooting, and to tragedies and disasters in general, needs to be looked at more holistically. Can you point to specific actions he has taken before, during or after the tragedy that show strong leadership? How does his leadership in the face of disasters compare to past presidents? It's not just one image or one round of golf; it's the overall pattern of behavior we're looking at.

2. The argument is never offered in good faith, as part of a genuine discussion about presidential standards of behavior or appropriate responses to tragedy. If that was really what you wanted to talk about, you'd say that. "Can we talk about proportional responses to tragedy? How soon is too soon for a national leader to go golfing after a tragedy?" Whataboutism is only used to deflect from whoever is being criticized and putting the critic on the defensive.

3. Whataboutism basically precludes us from ever growing or learning from the past. Are we locked into accepting horrible behavior only because it was accepted in the past? Does the fact that past presidents engaged in bad behavior mean that we should continue to accept it from the current president? What if I didn't vote for Obama? Can I still never criticize anything Trump does if we can by some stretch find some parallel exampe from Obama? Can we still argue that Trump's record with women is acceptable because Clinton also has a horrible record with women? What if you're upset about Trump's record with women and you weren't alive during Clinton's presidency?

4. Even if you can establish that the critic is a hypocrite that doesn't mean their criticism is wrong. It just changes the subject.

But as arguments go, Whataboutism is not nearly as bad as ad hominem and suggesting that anybody that criticizes Trump either has serious life issues, is "hysterical" or suffering from mental illness.

Your summation is missing a few other possibilities:

4. You are comparing a minor flaw in a previous president to a major flaw in the current president.

5. Your information is wrong and deliberately misleading.

33055

Tue, Feb 20 2018, 5:05 pm

Jeanette wrote:

It is the constant unbalanced harping on the The President that leads to others to decide that people screaming to the sky on his anniversary are mentally unbalanced.

There are at least two sides to every political issue, but crazies never can see anything positive and can't understand how anyone can. This tunnel vision lead to their defeat in the presidential election and their irrelevance today.

Andrew Pollack's daughter was murdered and sick disgusting mentally unbalanced liberals roped into him for wearing a Trump 2020 t-shirt while here searched for her and found out the news. Any right thinking decent person would blast these crazy liberals.

https://www.google.com/amp/amp.....-tru/

southernbubby

Tue, Feb 20 2018, 5:48 pm

Deep wrote:

I am neither Republican, nor Democrat. I am American in citizenship only.

Squishy, I find it continuously odd that you hysterically and vociferously deride liberals for being hysterical and vociferous.

It is sad that even such a horrific tragedy couldn't unite the country. After September 11, we were driving down from Montreal, and I remember being deeply touched by the countless flags and bumper stickers proclaiming unity and patriotism. I don't remember Democrats or Republicans blaming each other.

The Russians have won big time.

America has never managed to have more than 2 parties, even when small groups have tried to make their own parties. Each party is diametrically opposed to the other with no middle ground. If there would be more well supported parties, there might be more middle of the road points of view represented.

Unfortunately some ideas get packaged as Conservative or Liberal when they are neither so it often smacks of hypocrisy.

Another unfortunate outcome of all of this is that the media is usually biased one way or the other so it is almost impossible to get fair and impartial news. You have to watch or read both and then figure that they are both lying to a certain extent.

Each side is supported by it's own special interest groups so that muddies the waters even more because the NRA, for example, is about constitutional freedoms but also about gun manufacturing. Do Democrats really feel that Coca Cola should be a SNAP approved nutritional beverage or does the Cola industry make the case for that and support the Democrats? Of course the rhetoric is that the poor should not be discriminated against, etc.

Then the average person who might not fit tightly into either mold is almost forced to if he is on social media such as Facebook where he might be blasted from here to kingdom come if he dares say that he disagrees with any of his party's holy platforms.

Deep

Tue, Feb 20 2018, 5:57 pm

southernbubby wrote:

Historically though, times of tragedy have served to unite societies.
It is human nature to band together and support each other in times of need. In Israel, there is a lot of animosity between the chareidi and chiloni segments. In the wake of terror there is always heartwarming goodwill and kindness.
Americans have always united in the face of adversity. The opposite happened now and the only reasonable explanation is that the hate and divisiveness the Russians have been trying to plant has taken root.

Fox

Tue, Feb 20 2018, 6:25 pm

Jeanette wrote:

Then what you're saying is that the criticism actually isn't about his behavior subsequent to a tragedy; it's really about all kinds of other things that may or may not have to do with the particular criticism.

The idea of criticizing a specific action because of "holistic" determinations is basically a way for a critic to say, "I don't like this individual, so I'm going to keep track of anything that supports my viewpoint. However, I won't keep similar track of individuals whom I like."

This is basically the CNN approach with Trump, though the audience for it seems to be declining.

Jeanette wrote:

2. The argument is never offered in good faith, as part of a genuine discussion about presidential standards of behavior or appropriate responses to tragedy. If that was really what you wanted to talk about, you'd say that. "Can we talk about proportional responses to tragedy? How soon is too soon for a national leader to go golfing after a tragedy?" Whataboutism is only used to deflect from whoever is being criticized and putting the critic on the defensive.

How is pointing out a double-standard, by definition, not in good faith? Either evidence exists that a double-standard is in place or not. It seems to me that rejecting any objection to a double-standard is a way of refusing to acknowledge that people are being treated differently.

Pointing out a double-standard always comes in response to a criticism that is arguably not leveled against others exhibiting the same behaviors. In other words, in a perfect world, the conversation would go like this:

Quote:

Person A: It was inappropriate for President Trump to smile in a photo with medical personnel who treated victims of a tragedy.

Person B: Why? President Obama and President Bush did the same, and there was no objection. Here are photos.

Person A: You're right. Maybe we should change the topic to how we expect leaders to respond to tragedies.

Instead, it usually goes like this:

Quote:

Person A: It was inappropriate for President Trump to smile in a photo with medical personnel who treated victims of a tragedy.

Person B: Why? President Obama and President Bush did the same, and there was no objection. Here are photos.

Person A: Oh, so you think it's okay for a President to be having fun while kids are dying?

In other words, people who complain about "what about-ism" have the choice of either revising the topic to fit the reality or actually acknowledging the double-standard. Very rarely do they do either.

Jeanette wrote:

3. Whataboutism basically precludes us from ever growing or learning from the past. Are we locked into accepting horrible behavior only because it was accepted in the past? Does the fact that past presidents engaged in bad behavior mean that we should continue to accept it from the current president? What if I didn't vote for Obama? Can I still never criticize anything Trump does if we can by some stretch find some parallel exampe from Obama? Can we still argue that Trump's record with women is acceptable because Clinton also has a horrible record with women? What if you're upset about Trump's record with women and you weren't alive during Clinton's presidency?

The problem is that you can't argue one principle when you happen to support the guilty party and another when you don't.

When President Clinton came under attack for his treatment of women, virtually everyone on the left argued vociferously that his private s-xual behavior had no bearing on his ability to be an effective President. The people who made this argument are not long-dead individuals who represented a different time and place. They are many of the same people who are active in politics and culture today.

If you believe that someone can be an effective President despite problematic s-xual behavior, then you should have no problem with either Clinton or Trump. But if you believe that the President should uphold certain standards of morality or decency, you can't continue to welcome President Clinton in public life while complaining about Trump's presence.

If you weren't alive during Clinton's presidency but feel strongly that s-xual behavior must be considered in such cases, then you will obviously boycott any organizations or events where individuals with problematic histories are honored or feted, such as the Democratic National Convention.

Jeanette wrote:

4. Even if you can establish that the critic is a hypocrite that doesn't mean their criticism is wrong. It just changes the subject.

It certainly does change the subject! It changes the subject to the critic's motives. Someone arguing in good faith, as I noted above, would say, "Yeah, that's true. Maybe I notice it more because I don't like Trump Maybe the real question is how we expect Presidents to behave after a tragedy."

But someone who says, "Ugh! This what about-ism is so ridiculous," is really saying, "I was hoping you wouldn't notice that I couldn't have cared less about Presidential behavior until we happened to get a President whom I disklike."

Jeanette wrote:

But as arguments go, Whataboutism is not nearly as bad as ad hominem and suggesting that anybody that criticizes Trump either has serious life issues, is "hysterical" or suffering from mental illness.

I have never seen such an attitude or accusation -- literally -- from anyone who wasn't wearing an alumnium foil hat or at least in the market for one. If you check out the list of people I listen to and read on the "favorite conservatives" thread, I do not believe you will find a single one who has not criticized the President, many vociferously.

However, Trump Derangement Sydrome is pretty easy to diagnose. There's a joke that illustrates it: "If Trump were to walk on water, CNN would criticize him for not being able to swim." Fortunately, there aren't too many people like that in real life. These people mostly live in the media, where they are presumably paid for their efforts. Kind of like Weird Al Yankovic's version of Lady GaGa's Born This Way:

Quote:

"I'm not crazy. I just perform this way."

Jeanette

Tue, Feb 20 2018, 7:05 pm

What I feel you are trying to do with this argument is to back me into a corner of defending the words and actions of people I have no connection to and that are only tangentially related to the subject at hand. You do this to deflect criticism of Trump and on to other people that I have nothing to do with.

For one thing, I cannot take it for granted that the picture you say represents Bush or Obama after a tragedy is actually what you say it is. I know that there are certain players who are not above simply making up conspiracy theories, passing off fake pictures or highly misleading ones. So first I need to confirm that your picture is accurate and that it was actually taken when you say it was taken, and that it's not being taken out of context. By then we are talking and thinking about something completely different from the original topic, which is exactly the point.

For example, Obama once flirted with the Danish prime minister, so therefore everything Trump ever did is okay. Did he actually flirt? How bad was it? Who cares. What matters is that we are talking about Obama flirting.

Here's an example that I heard over and over throughout the campaign. Someone points out some egregious whopper of Trump's. The response from the right, almost inevitably, was, "Obama lied all the time too! He said, 'If you want to keep your doctor you can keep your doctor!'" The fact that EVERYONE used this one example ALL the time made me think that there was no other example of an Obama "lie" that they could easily call to mind. As if repeatedly making demonstrably false claims on all sorts of topics is somehow comparable to a campaign promise that Obama certainly HOPED and TRIED to follow through with but unfortunately failed to deliver. But that was enough in the minds of conservatives to walk away saying, "See? It's not so bad that Trump lies. Obama lied too!"

It matters to me that the examples should at least be comparable in scope and scale. So yes if you want to get aburdly reductive it does not matter to me exactly how many days, hours, minutes or seconds a president goes golfing after a tragedy. I find Trump's overall response to tragedies woefully insufficient. I am disturbed by the fact that he spent two days after the tragedy tweeting self-pitying comments on the Russia investigation. It's all about him all the time.

Quote:

If you weren't alive during Clinton's presidency but feel strongly that s-xual behavior must be considered in such cases, then you will obviously boycott any organizations or events where individuals with problematic histories are honored or feted, such as the Democratic National Convention.

So your argument is that if you really believed A then you would do B, and the fact that you don't do B proves that you don't really believe A. Who is making up these rules? Do you follow these rules in your own life? Or are you just trying to impose them on others as a way to shut down any discussion you don't like?