Quote (Thor123422 @ Jan 21 2021 05:54pm)
So the most recent example you can give is before the 2016 election.
Yeah thanks for proving my point.
You didn't just defend Barr, you bent over backwards to defend Flynn and Manafort and actively tried to conflate Bidens behavior with Flynn with zero evidence.
You bent over backwards to defend the indefensible and now you have to pretend the other side is just as bad or worse to save your ego. You're basically the only one who doesnt see it.
If you can't take the time to read what I write, please feel free not to respond. It is optional. You are doing what you routinely claim other people do to you; the irony is not lost. And when I tell you that you're histrionic, this is what I'm talking about.
Trump has a poor character, he staffs terribly, he makes unforced political blunders. He insisted on making Covid a political litmus test when the pragmatic option was still wide open to him. I have no desire to go back and find every single thing Trump did wrong. What I caution against doing is what you are doing now. When you exaggerate his sins beyond any semblance of reasonable belief you are tuned out. The media accused Trump of a literal conspiracy to steal an election with the help of a hostile foreign power. They were wrong, and they were tuned out. And now we sit wringing our hands wondering how so many people are following ludicrous conspiracies on the web, when the sources they should be able to trust have fundamentally betrayed their original mission.
I defend Flynn, because whatever his faults, he was set-up. It is imperative that we separate our feelings about a person generally from the facts of the case specifically. Was Flynn innocent? No, he has committed a variety of misdeeds. But was the punishment for Flynn commensurate with others who have committed similar offences? Of course not. That is a problem for a first world state that claims to operate within the strict confines of the law.
It is little different from the people who condemn George Floyd specifically because he was a criminal. Of course he was, in fact, a drug addict and life-long criminal who once held a gun to a woman's stomach, but the question is whether the police acted legally in the events up to him losing his life. I say yes, others say no, and the law will, I hope, judge impartially. But the fact that he was a degenerate does not validate his death. That must be judged on the merits of the case.
Apply the same here. Flynn almost certainly lied, and he has committed at least one other low level offence. But why was he picked for an interview? Why was the usual decorum ignored? Why was no lawyer present, when lawyers were present for Clinton's interview? The power of the law resides in impartiality. "Due process for me, and not for thee" is the worst sort of bureaucratic corruption. Flynn's crime (not reporting that he was a Turkish lobbyist) is usually punished with a fine. The perjury charge stems from an interview that never should have happened, and the result of Flynn trying to clean up a minor story to the press to avoid a negative headline during a transition. The idea that this is some great unspeakable betrayal is a farce. The people alleging it are unserious, and we should avoid getting pulled into the embarrassment.
What I say I try to defend with evidence. I am of the opinion that I have done a fair job. I have no idea where you get the idea that I feel regret, shame, or chagrin for anything that I say.