“erode rule of law” says guy who wanted to overturn an election and whose party is currently advancing the first convicted felon nominee and backing “Project 2025” which proposes to absolutely dynamite “rule of law”
I’m sorry but Republiklans can’t use that line anymore.
No, it isn’t. Whataboutism is pointing to a different wrong as a way to dismiss a currently discussed wrong. This is using someone’s past actions as a reason they shouldn’t be trusted in their current statement. It’s a legitimate attack on the speaker’s ethos.
but it functions as a whataboutism. it doesn’t address the original concerns of the statement. instead it uses an ad hominem attach to discredit the argument
“erode rule of law” says guy who wanted to overturn an election and whose party is currently advancing the first convicted felon nominee and backing “Project 2025” which proposes to absolutely dynamite “rule of law”
I’m sorry but Republiklans can’t use that line anymore.
not saying you’re wrong, but that is a whataboutism
No, it isn’t. Whataboutism is pointing to a different wrong as a way to dismiss a currently discussed wrong. This is using someone’s past actions as a reason they shouldn’t be trusted in their current statement. It’s a legitimate attack on the speaker’s ethos.
This is not a whataboutism, this is calling someone out, and their party out, for their hypocrisy.
but it functions as a whataboutism. it doesn’t address the original concerns of the statement. instead it uses an ad hominem attach to discredit the argument
Yes, it does. The statements concerns were bullshit fakery, as proven by the points given.