The Trump campaign embraces Jan. 6 rioters with money and pardon promises ( www.npr.org )

Chainweasel , 5 months ago

There were 14 days after the riot that he could have used to pardon them and he chose to use that tube to pack up classified documents instead. That’s the talking point I’d start with,
“if he really cared about you then why did he sit on his hands for two weeks instead of signing a blanket pardon?”

PowerCrazy , 5 months ago

I ask the same about Obama when he sat his hands in 2009 instead of codifying roe v wade, or when he compromised on bodily autonomy for his Heritage Foundation insurance handout.

Dkarma , 5 months ago

The president doesn’t make laws wtf u smoking?

NovaPrime , 5 months ago

Obama is not running. Cheeto is. Try again.

PowerCrazy , 5 months ago

No but the democrats are, and they also sat on their hands.

HopeOfTheGunblade , 5 months ago

The Democrats are inadequately good. The Republicans are actively bad. Lotta daylight between those two states.

NovaPrime , 5 months ago

Ok, but that’s irrelevant to the topic at hand. It’s whataboutism

PowerCrazy , 5 months ago

The election is coming up right? And Democrats are going to run in that election. So if the “talking point” is that Trump didn’t pardon the rioters when he had the chance, therefore he is lying to them, how is it that the democrats promises they broke re:abortion and the environment when they had the chance, not relevant to the topic at hand?

They are lying to you about what you think you are voting for.

NovaPrime , 5 months ago

Let’s try it this way. Based on your comment, I understand your argument structure to be like this (correct me if I’m wrong):

Election is coming up > democrats are running in the election > as part of the election strategy democrats are pushing a “talking point” about trump campaign dangling pardons and legal defense funding for his insurrection conspirators > trump had the chance to pardon them already but chose not to, so therefore he’s lying to them > democratic party promises they broke re: abortion and environment when they had power are the same type of lie and therefore relevant to the discussion about trump campaign dangling pardons and legal defense funding for his insurrection conspirators in the current campaign.

Surely you can see how you’ve had to construct an entirely different argument structure around the actual subject of discussion (trump campaign dangling pardons and legal defense funding for his insurrection conspirators) to try and build relevance? But even then it doesnt actually work logically.

Your original response was essentially “but what about Obummer?!” That’s whataboutism. It’s a logical fallacy.

Semi-Hemi-Demigod , 5 months ago

You act like logic will work on them. You can’t reason people out of ideas they didn’t reason themselves into.

ashok36 , 5 months ago

The answer is that if he tried to pardon them then the senate would have convicted him in his impeachment and the entire white house legal team would have walked out (along with a lot of other white house staff).