Someone needed to fill Starving Artist’s Clothahump’s Shodan’s you’re favoret ijit hear shoes.
raises hand
Sam’s an odd duck. That’s fine. I’ve always like what might possibly be his theme song: John Prine: Sam Stone. Course, Illegal Smile is pretty good too.
Although not as odd as some. JiveTurkey88 the Contrarian comes to mind.
Now this fucking idiot is resorting to tu quoques. It’s all he has left.
If he were capable of shame he’d be embarrassed to go anywhere near any thread that mentioned Hunter Biden, but a dedicated chicken fucker like Sam is in no way capable of shame.
It wasn’t a tu quoque, it was a direct response to the claim that a politicized Justice Department was somehow unique to Trump. I could also mention George W. Bush’s Attorney General, or many of the others, such as John F. Kennedy’s own brother Robert.
The ideal is for the Justice Department to be apolitical and objective. The reality has been very different.
Ya could have . . . but you didn’t.
On one hand, some words. On the other, the DOJ actively attempting to defend the President in a CIVIL suit, threatening retribution against political rivals, and spreading conspiracy theories.
Totally the same. 
“It wasn’t a tu quoque. I was just pointing out that other people did it too.”
Do you even hear yourself chicken fucker? It’s the the tu quoqueiest tu quoque that tu have ever quoqued.
thank you.
You shouldn’t parrot back Latin words when you clearly don’t understand what they mean.
So I guess I shouldn’t be calling him a quoque-suquer…
Here’s another theory that Sam Stone can latch onto. I’m sure that he can be convinced that this should be taken seriously. I mean, Roger Stone would not lie about this, because it’s so easily disproven. So it must be true. right? Right?
“If this checks out, if law enforcement looked into that and it turned out to be true, it would be proof of foreign involvement in the election.”
I have incontrovertible proof that Roger Stone fucked a chicken. If this checks out, if law enforcement looked into that and it turned out to be true, it would be proof that Roger Stone is a chicken fucker.
This is fun!
This sounds about 1000 times more plausible than Stone’s accusations.
I have proof that Roger Stone’s erect penis has been closer to a chicken’s cloaca than PA Election Ballots have been to any North Korean boat moored in Maine.
I realize I’m responding way late to this post, but it is pretty much in line with what I (we) have suspected all along.
There was also a Psychology Today article I read recently (originally published in the months after the 2016 election) that pretty much said the same thing and that Trump voters were motivated by these characteristics (with my paraphrasing and, admittedly, my own license with language):
-
Authoritarianism: the idea that there are certain rules that define a culture and that it’s important to follow these rules and obey authorities that impose this order.
-
Social dominance: the idea that there is a social hierarchy (and that they either are or should be recognizes as being at the top of it)
-
Prejudice: stating the obvious. Although not necessarily outright beliefs of racial superiority, prejudice refers to strong biases against out groups.
-
Low inter-group contact: Trump voters, unsurprisingly, have limited contact with others outside their own social circles and are consequently less likely to understand any perceived differences between their own cultures and others, and less able to relate to the experiences anyone from an out group would have. The ultimate result is less empathy.
-
Relative deprivation: The idea that the gains of others has come largely at their expense. It’s the assumption that we live in a zero-sum world in which as someone else makes gains, people in their community lose. The caveat here is that in some cases, the losses are not just perceived but very real - not that it’s the fault of out-groups, but that the in-group is sustaining actual damage economically, socially, and otherwise.
Proving that something didn’t happen can sometimes be quite difficult. That’s why the burden is on the accuser to prove that it did. Which is impossible when, if fact, said thing didn’t happen. As we are seeing in the parade of lost Trump suits.
Once again, I was responding to this:
To which I responded that an independent AG who is not a ‘tool of the administration’ is not the norm. I brought up Eric Holder, but you could also point to John Ashcroft (as many on the left did) or many other AGs.
This is not a tu quoche argument. It’s a direct response to a claim. If you still don’t think so, grab a dictionary and a clue.
And you shouldn’t snark at people without actually reading what they said and what they are responding to.
Shouldn’t you be making a thread about Trump’s 46 minute video and how you’re convinced it spells the end for the Democratic party?