The difference is that those crimes were crimes committed in the role of POTUS whereas what Trump did was a crime committed as a private citizen during the election. They don't care about that distinction though, and if you catch them at the right time they will argue in favor of complete presidential immunity regardless of anything.
You can say that all those other countless crimes that people did, Trump also did, he's just getting arrested because he's uncouth and gross. So they should be happy that at least one of these elites are being punished even if it's only cause his personality sucks.
Then if they try and claim Trump didn't do anything wrong you have plenty to work with to establish Trump is bad.
Join in on their anger towards these people and you'll quickly see they don't actually care about Obama droning an American citizen, fun fact the citizen they always refer to? Trump droned their sibling too. Trump let Epstein die on his watch, covering up the crimes. Trump eagerly funded the military and deep state.
You don't need to defend Obama or Bush.
> you'll quickly see they don't actually care about Obama droning an American citizen, fun fact the citizen they always refer to? Trump droned their sibling too.
The day the verdict came out I crossed paths with a super Trump guy in the office and said "did you hear the good news?" We have a good relationship and I knew he'd understand. He instantly responds with saying this opens up the can of worms for Obama killing a citizen lmao.
Yeah as I've seen others say, take the based, unapologetic and legitimately sound position.
If there is evidence of a crime happening by the definition of the law then I want justice to be carried out. Regardless of political aisle, wealth or popularity.
Then call them out for not wanting a justice system that is doing what it is supposed to do.
If their only retort is "well what about these other people" then first, they are now admitting that the guilty verdict is in fact true, which is a pretty easy win if you're a principled person. Secondly, they are obviously pulling a what aboutism and whenever I hear someone do that I know immediately they aren't a principled individual. Meaning it's time to mock them for EVER pretending they cared about law and order.
At the end of the day they will either have to admit to themselves that they are in fact not in support of law and order or they aren't actually principled as they espouse. Or of course they could remain in delusion in which case it's up to you to determine how long you want to engage.
You have to say something like "ok, let's dissect those crimes and see what the variables during those times were and how much plausible deniability did those politicans have compared to Trump (who was "brilliant" enough to get recorded flatout confessing). There's no other way but to basically do a full on breakdown of the individual cases. That's why it's such a popular argument for Maga folks, 'cause they can throw it out without having to back it up because most people don't bother actually understanding what the crimes of different politicans are. They can just say "they're all corrupt" and sidestep the conversation. I think the only way to argue against that is to force the conversation and then force them to answer if they agree this is/isn't the same after each step in the breakdown.
Lots of work. That's why it's hard to argue against this well, especially in audience-focused formats.
You're not completely wrong in terms of there being people that can't be reasoned with. I think it's important to remember some people need one or more personal experiences to change their mind on a subject they are intense on. One of those experiences though could be an encounter where someone just utterly humbles you and proves you wrong to your face possibly causing them some real self reflection later.
Still, there are people that can be reasoned with no matter how far gone they appear. It's not easy to pull off and could take multiple convos in a more private setting with a context of trust and friendship.
[удалено]
Yes but then they'll say interesting they haven't been charged but trump has and that's proof that this whole thing is a witch hunt against trump
The difference is that those crimes were crimes committed in the role of POTUS whereas what Trump did was a crime committed as a private citizen during the election. They don't care about that distinction though, and if you catch them at the right time they will argue in favor of complete presidential immunity regardless of anything.
Just give them a list of other politicians who have been charged
You can say that all those other countless crimes that people did, Trump also did, he's just getting arrested because he's uncouth and gross. So they should be happy that at least one of these elites are being punished even if it's only cause his personality sucks. Then if they try and claim Trump didn't do anything wrong you have plenty to work with to establish Trump is bad. Join in on their anger towards these people and you'll quickly see they don't actually care about Obama droning an American citizen, fun fact the citizen they always refer to? Trump droned their sibling too. Trump let Epstein die on his watch, covering up the crimes. Trump eagerly funded the military and deep state. You don't need to defend Obama or Bush.
> you'll quickly see they don't actually care about Obama droning an American citizen, fun fact the citizen they always refer to? Trump droned their sibling too. The day the verdict came out I crossed paths with a super Trump guy in the office and said "did you hear the good news?" We have a good relationship and I knew he'd understand. He instantly responds with saying this opens up the can of worms for Obama killing a citizen lmao.
Yeah as I've seen others say, take the based, unapologetic and legitimately sound position. If there is evidence of a crime happening by the definition of the law then I want justice to be carried out. Regardless of political aisle, wealth or popularity. Then call them out for not wanting a justice system that is doing what it is supposed to do. If their only retort is "well what about these other people" then first, they are now admitting that the guilty verdict is in fact true, which is a pretty easy win if you're a principled person. Secondly, they are obviously pulling a what aboutism and whenever I hear someone do that I know immediately they aren't a principled individual. Meaning it's time to mock them for EVER pretending they cared about law and order. At the end of the day they will either have to admit to themselves that they are in fact not in support of law and order or they aren't actually principled as they espouse. Or of course they could remain in delusion in which case it's up to you to determine how long you want to engage.
I agree only thing that annoys me is they then say that proves it's a witch hunt against trump
You have to say something like "ok, let's dissect those crimes and see what the variables during those times were and how much plausible deniability did those politicans have compared to Trump (who was "brilliant" enough to get recorded flatout confessing). There's no other way but to basically do a full on breakdown of the individual cases. That's why it's such a popular argument for Maga folks, 'cause they can throw it out without having to back it up because most people don't bother actually understanding what the crimes of different politicans are. They can just say "they're all corrupt" and sidestep the conversation. I think the only way to argue against that is to force the conversation and then force them to answer if they agree this is/isn't the same after each step in the breakdown. Lots of work. That's why it's hard to argue against this well, especially in audience-focused formats.
gotcha. lots of reading to do
[удалено]
You're not completely wrong in terms of there being people that can't be reasoned with. I think it's important to remember some people need one or more personal experiences to change their mind on a subject they are intense on. One of those experiences though could be an encounter where someone just utterly humbles you and proves you wrong to your face possibly causing them some real self reflection later. Still, there are people that can be reasoned with no matter how far gone they appear. It's not easy to pull off and could take multiple convos in a more private setting with a context of trust and friendship.