The New York congresswoman said on the House floor that the justices' refusal to recuse from certain prominent cases “represents an abuse of power and threat to our democracy."
Well you can’t maintain focus on the topic if you start going down every branch. It just comes across as whiny and instead of constructive. It even caused your comment to be apathetic.
That’s not whataboutism. I’m showing the hypocrisy in one rule being justified, but not the other, so as to argue more effectively against the age rule. Whataboutism is when you change the subject.
So it’s okay to have a constitutionally-mandated age requirement, but not a no-treason requirement?
Whataboutism my man
So what if it is? The point is that the whole system is a circus sideshow.
Well you can’t maintain focus on the topic if you start going down every branch. It just comes across as whiny and instead of constructive. It even caused your comment to be apathetic.
That’s not whataboutism. I’m showing the hypocrisy in one rule being justified, but not the other, so as to argue more effectively against the age rule. Whataboutism is when you change the subject.
It is 100% whataboutism. There is no denying it.
It’s not whataboutism: https://www.merriam-webster.com/wordplay/whataboutism-origin-meaning
Whataboutism is about switching the topic and reversal of accusation.
OP said that we have minimum age to be president, but according to SCOTUS it is a-ok to be a felon and running for the office.
A whataboutism in the subject of this post, where we talking about impeachment of Thomas and Alito would be “what about Pelosi’s stocks”?
Thank you. That’s a great example of real whataboutism.
deleted by creator
No one cares