So, should we treat Joe unfairly like Kavanaugh was treated, or treat him fairly and remember to criticize the media for their past failure?

Treating someone fairly means applying the same standards as were applied to politicians seeking office not very long ago from the other party. Kavanaugh for example.

Treating one person unfairly and the other fairly doesn't result in a fair world. Treating both unfairly at least says we live in an unfair world but we treat both parties unfairly not just one.

This post was edited by ofthevoid on May 5 2020 10:32am

Trump has polarized the biased media and fact-based media so much that I'm not sure it's possible we can have another "Hillary's emails" story going on and on endlessly. Whatever Biden stories they come up with won't get enough traction in the fact-based media to significantly chip away at his support.



Kavanaugh wasn't a politician seeking the presidency, he was a jurist seeking a Supreme Court seat. A more appropriate scenario would be Biden vs Trump.

So, if you're saying we should treat the allegations against Biden and Trump with equal vigor and objectivity, I agree.

You're getting dangerously close to arguing for affirmative action bruh.

Fairness =/= equal outcomes.
In a fair fight, the mayor of Knox County beats the mayor of South Bend. To have an equal fight you'd have to give Pete at knife and a stepladder

Except in this case you gave the mayor of Knox County a gun and allowed him to kneecap the mayor of South Bend, and then when somebody pointed out that wasn't fair you took the gun away and proclaimed that from now on its a fair fight. Affirmative action gives the mayor of South Bend a wheelchair and a knife to even the playing field, but then people started screaming that it's not fair because the mayor of Knox County didn't get a knife or a wheelchair.

This post was edited by Thor123422 on May 5 2020 11:05am

Pretty sure he doesn't need a gun, if they're both unarmed he'd pick up Pete and fold him like a pretzel before the chokeslam.
And anyway in this case, its someone whos never been kneecapped or seen a gun complaining about what someone else's distant forefather once faced in a wrestling league that hasnt existed for 100 years, and saying that justifies them being given a gun today while the other guy is unarmed.

This post was edited by Goomshill on May 5 2020 11:07am

TIL that red-lining is more than 100 years ago, and civil rights wasn't passed just a generation ago. You learn more every day.

Same dudes who did that hard at work now.

Yep. They took the gun away from Knox and are complaining that it's not fair that South Bend gets a set of crutches to help with his blown out kneecaps.

And gullible people will think they are making the arguments in good faith because "it's not fair to give someone an advantage" while ignoring that the ones they are defending fought tooth and nail to keep their advantage.