jump to last post 1-4 of 4 discussions (6 posts)

Why do so many use "the other person did it too" to excuse their candidates wron

  1. RJ Schwartz profile image94
    RJ Schwartzposted 15 months ago

    Why do so many use "the other person did it too" to excuse their candidates wrongdoings?

    Hillary Clinton is caught and her law-breaking activities are exposed in her emails.  So what's the Democrats approach ?   Talk about the Bush email incident or the supposed Trump emails his company manages (even though he's not a public servant.)  Hillary uses gmail so the campaign points to Rice and Powell who did the same - but they never did outside the system and did not have a home brew server.  Two wrongs don't make a right, or do they?


  2. tamarawilhite profile image91
    tamarawilhiteposted 15 months ago

    They can't defend the immorality / criminal action, so their defense is don't punish me because then you have to punish everyone.

    I think the Democrats reflexively returning to this excuse that everyone is criminal and corrupt is because their party is similar to Islam - the highest good is the good image of the party and spreading its influence, all other acts are acceptable if they further that goal. This makes corruption and abuse of power acceptable because those bad acts are in the name of a higher good, in this case, spreading or strengthening the Democratic party's power.

    So the Democratic party routinely violates separation of PACs from campaigns, abuses non-profit laws, commits voter fraud, and they assume what they are doing is normal for them so everyone else must be doing it too.

  3. Dont Taze Me Bro profile image60
    Dont Taze Me Broposted 15 months ago


    It has nothing to do with wrongs making a right. The whole point of the over used liberal tactic of "the other person did it too" is to muddy the waters and give people who need an excuse not to say they are wrong or to ignore and/or reject the facts or not to concede they have lost the debate.

    Just another play in the liberal's playbook designed to keep people uninformed, brainwashed and ready to condone at any cost wrong doing by Democrats. People who use this tactic are only interested in one thing and that is not to convince or sway reasoning people to their point of view but to manipulate, deceive and control the thinking of unreasoning, emotional dupes and people who are basically disinterested but will dismiss the facts and accept wrong because they're hearing everybody does it. And people susceptible to the "the other person did it too" argument propagate it themselves because in the back of their mind it is a rationale for them to do anything they want if they can "imagine" others are doing it.

    "Imagine," a key word that is where "the other person did it too" argument gets to be used most, because if there isn't a real example of "the other person did it too" they make one up. The truth that maybe "the other person did it too" has nothing to do with their goal which is simply to make you believe "the other person did it too" so they imagine the other person did it too, they make it up just like making up that Rice and Powell did it too.

    Yep, just one more example of the deceit and conniving embedded in the mental illness known as liberalism.

  4. profile image0
    Old Poolmanposted 15 months ago

    The facts are that there are already people in prison for committing lesser offences than Hillary.  Others have been humiliated and ended long honorable careers for lesser offences.

    It is just the liberal way to always go on the attack and blame others for something they know in their hearts was just plain wrong by one of those they worship.

    This behavior is the best example of "Blind Loyalty" we will ever see.

    1. RJ Schwartz profile image94
      RJ Schwartzposted 15 months agoin reply to this

      You're right.  I've already heard two cases in which military people who MISTAKENLY moved classified info and are now being prosecuted using the "Hillary defense"

    2. ptosis profile image82
      ptosisposted 15 months agoin reply to this

      @RS, correct because lack of intent is not part of that particular law you are referring to.