The clear implication of your posts points to A.
Wow! How can anyone with any sense of integrity defend this? It’s beyond shameful.
Your insinuation is a cite? Holy shit that’s weak.
Except that it rests on a solid foundation of innuendo.
Did you understand my question, you idiot?
Emphasis mine. In addition to the fundamental differences that other posters have already noted, there’s also a little matter of law. A pretty strong case could be made that the RNC solicitation is blatantly illegal, because it’s exactly the kind of deception that the law is intended to target. The DNC one clearly is not. Are you able to understand why?
NM
Actually I’m not sure that’s clear. What if instead of a donation to the DNC, it had let to a donation for the RNC? It certainly seems to border on fraud. I can certainly imagine both of these solicitation attempts reasonably being made illegal, albeit for distinctly different reasons.
That’s an interesting issue, but (perhaps not surprisingly) I think you’re really stretching here. If Paul Ryan is caught with the proverbial dead girl or live boy tomorrow, there’s a spectrum of responses possible. On the one hand, you have “wow, that Paul Ryan is certainly a terrible person”, with no reference to his political party at all. On the other hand, you could have “Republicans are all terrible, this just proves it, clearly this behavior is directly due to his Republican-ness, no way a Democrat would ever do that”.
But what you seem to be overlooking is that there are plenty of statements in between those two. If someone responds by saying “fucking Republican assholes”, what does that really mean? Does that imply anything about what that person thinks of Democrats?
I’ve read hundreds of thousands of SDMB posts and I don’t think I’ve ever ever EVER seen someone claim that democrats are flawless. Can you just write on a post-it “…oh, also, Democrats are not perfect and might also be guilty of this” and use it as a suffix to every SDMB post you read? I think we’d all appreciate that.
No, it does not. Because the explicit content of my posts points to (B). You cannot honestly think to argue that you are entitled to ignore the explicit in favor of the mere implication, can you?
How about, instead, posters include that disclaimer? Then not only am I disarmed, but so too is every other reader. Your method just fixes me.
And it’s a lie, because we both know that the purpose of this thread was to attack Republicans, not just this scummy activity,
No, they don’t. There is no need to reference the other side in a thread that is specifically about the GOP.
No one has said that Democrats don’t do this same kind of thing. Both sides do shitty things.
But as to why no one denounced the Dems in this thread, well, Occam’s Razor would suggest that, since this was a high-ranking Republican who did this, that’s the person who got Pitted.
If it was intended to redirect funds to the RNC, then that would be fraud. But the DNC is the umbrella organization under which Bernie is running, an explicit choice that he made because of the benefits of having DNC affiliation, presumably in part because of the support the party could provide. The party here was turning the tables and using his popularity to promote the organization itself.
I do think it was a scummy tactic, no question, and I condemn it, but it’s not anywhere on the level of the RNC scare tactic. It was self-promotion by association, sort of like an oil company advertising that they’ve funded the creation of a new city park. The implication being that they are saintly beings and if you buy their product many good things like that will happen, which is not true, but not illegal and very common PR.
The events of the past few months alone – their two current front-runners for the presidency and the Merrick Garland affair – suggest that many of them are scumbags who well deserve to be attacked. Just sayin’.
You “know” a lot of things that don’t happen to be true.
When was the last time a high-ranking Democrat got Pitted, on this board?
That’s the truth. Bricker, nobody is stopping you from starting a Pit thread if you see a Democrat doing a shitty thing. In fact, I believe there is a thread dedicated to just that in this forum, that you could be filling with all the misdeeds that you seem to think they do “too”…but for some reason you’d rather just use it as an excuse than actually report on any specific misdeeds.
If you’ve got a valid reason, what the fuck is stopping you?
Bullshit. You include that disclaimer, it’s pretty clear you’re suggesting the NDP is blameless. Mention the NDP, I gotta wonder why you think the Revolutionary Communist Party is free of corruption. Disclaim them, you know I’m gonna ask you about ISIS, you hypocrite.
Your proposal leads to requiring people, after accusing any group of misbehavior, listing all the other human organizations who similarly engage in misbehavior. The alternative is to assume that an accusation of misbehavior against one group does not imply angelic behavior on the part of any other group.
Much easier.
The Bricker Proposal: From now on, the only entity with the moral right to start a BBQ Pit thread is Jesus Christ…and possibly his mother.