[flagged]
I've seen this pattern many times in the last decade:
* Conservatives: "I don't get it, why aren't they defending their team against my critique? Are they not loyal?
* Liberals: "I don't get it, why won't they acknowledge when Their Team does something bad? Don't they have any principles?"
So it's worthwhile to note that both major political parties believe this is acceptable.
Trump set a stratosphereic high bar for examples par excellence, I doubt all of Pelosi's husband trades add up to a signifigant fraction of Trump's crypto gains alone.
Wait, have any congressmen topped her rate of return?
More to the point, this is simple what-about-ism to avoid facing up to corruption in the US government and the poressing need (for many decades now) to take effective action.
As it stands, the emoluments clause and the impeachment wrist slapping make the US a standing joke for poor definition of problem and inability to punish.
Eg, an inability to enforce anti corruption at state and federal levels and a weak ineffectual process of bringing heels to boot.
<yawn>
> provides the proper counter measures to return the power to the people.
Wake me up when that happens.
Glad you noticed.
And even if that framing was accepted: okay, now we "talk about the other side", but then anything said could be countered with something about this side. It's not pointing out anything relevant, it's rather wiggling a laser pointer.
This is a strange thing to say about someone pointing out that the problem is widespread. It's not a false dichotomy: insider trading is endemic to congress.
Also why would you write "false dichotomy that everything perceived to be somehow against American political party A can only be of interest for proponents of American political party B" when someone is replying to the most unhinged and extreme take:
> > That line of argument... is often associated with pro-Kremlin narratives
If you want to talk about a false dichotomy, maybe someone engaging in ridiculous conspiracy theories about how criticising Democrats can only be of interest for proponents of the Russian regime would be a good place to start?
Both Trump and Pelosi and all of congress doing insider trading all shows the complete corruption in US politics in the open.
It's just that one of them is better at hiding it.
I mean Pelosi has a higher rate of success as a stock picker than Warren Buffet.
> That line of argument isn’t new
Why are points raised previously invalid?
> and is often associated with pro-Kremlin narratives
I could write "pro-Kremlin narratives are associated with the Russiagate hoax" but that would be childish.