The hypocrisy of dismissing claims based upon the political alignment of the claimant.

Discussion in 'Political Opinions & Beliefs' started by robini123, Oct 10, 2019.

  1. robini123

    robini123 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 8, 2004
    Messages:
    12,802
    Likes Received:
    886
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Some on the right are quick to dismiss the claims of the whistleblower because he or she allegedly has ties to a Democrat. If we assert that political alignment makes it impossible for a person to make a factually correct claim about one from another party, then for the purpose of a logical consistency we must also make the same claim about Republicans that are going after the Biden’s. To do anything less would be hypocritical.

    I argue that while political affiliation comes with an inherent bias, that this in no way implies or proves that all things said by a partisan is untrue. Claims need to be objectively vetted, especially claims made by partisans no matter their party affiliation. To reject claims we do not like simply because we do not like the source of the claim is to be a slave to our own bias.

    Be careful about the claims you make about the other side, as in many cases the same applies to your side. With no forethought this leads to a self inflicted wound when our hypocrisy is pointed out... which we will then be offended by because tribalism makes us oblivious to our own bias and hypocrisy as we see them as objectivity. It is tough to see our own bias as our bias tends to be indistinguishable from our objectivity. The claims I make here apply to both the left, the right and myself.
     
    Last edited: Oct 10, 2019
    Starjet, Phyxius, redeemer216 and 3 others like this.
  2. RodB

    RodB Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 29, 2015
    Messages:
    10,104
    Likes Received:
    4,201
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    What you say is basically true, but you wrongly put down the concerns about the whistle blower. Questioning his political affiliation is nothing more than vetting. Further questioning his activity in support of presidential candidate is a little more significant vetting. Further questioning his interfacing with Rep Schiff gets to very significant vetting. Then more open and near public vetting would be necessary if the objective of the whistle blower is the impeachment of a president.
     
    ButterBalls likes this.
  3. Belch

    Belch Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 4, 2015
    Messages:
    16,231
    Likes Received:
    4,404
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I agree, but the objectivity of the witness does play into it. In a court of law, a witness is not inherently seen as impartial. This is why we don't allow spouses to testify. They are deemed inherently biased, so their testimony isn't even heard.

    Does the political affiliation of this nameless whistleblower with second hand information matter? I'd say the biggest problem isn't the bias, but we don't even have a face to go with the accusation!

    Where is this mofo? I'm guessing we'll never know, so all of this arguing over the political affiliation of this whoever is irrelevant. He's another nothingburger served up by Schiff and Pelosi, who are laughing stocks.
     
    ButterBalls and RodB like this.
  4. Golem

    Golem Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2016
    Messages:
    15,199
    Likes Received:
    4,914
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I don't get how questioning anything whatsoever about the whistle blower is of any use. We need to vet what they say. Not them! It's ridiculous.

    Of what we know at this point the whistle blower told the truth: Trump made the call. Said things he considered inappropriate. The concern was passed up the ladder, where his concerns were deemed to be legitimate. And then kept going up until the parties under "suspicion" and their minions did their best to illegally hide the information, which is what is expected of anybody who does inappropriate things.

    It's pretty clear. Who gives a crap about the whistleblower's party affiliation? He did his part appropriately. Period!
     
    Last edited: Oct 11, 2019
    opion8d and Meta777 like this.
  5. RodB

    RodB Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 29, 2015
    Messages:
    10,104
    Likes Received:
    4,201
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    You cannot vet a witness's words without vetting the witness. That is why the credibility of a witness is of utmost importance in a court of law. If the witness is deemed not credible he or she is not allowed to say any words at all. It would lend credence and be probative if we knew for instance the extent and why Rep. Schiff played such a key role in formulating and allowing the whistle blower's complaint.
     
    ButterBalls likes this.
  6. carlberky

    carlberky Active Member

    Joined:
    Sep 11, 2019
    Messages:
    461
    Likes Received:
    225
    Trophy Points:
    43
    Gender:
    Male
    "This is why we don't allow spouses to testify. They are deemed inherently biased, so their testimony isn't even heard."

    If she or he elects to, they can testify.

    https://stories.avvo.com/relationships/why-a-spouses-secrets-are-above-the-law.html

    "if what you say is overheard by someone else, there is no privilege. The privilege only covers things you say to each other and not acts you observe each other doing (if you see your husband shoot someone, it’s not a privileged communication so you could share what you saw, but you still can’t be forced to testify against him)."
     
    Phyxius and yardmeat like this.
  7. Lil Mike

    Lil Mike Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 4, 2011
    Messages:
    30,823
    Likes Received:
    7,979
    Trophy Points:
    113

    A claim is usually true or false regardless of the political bias of the witness. However in the case of whistleblower #1 (yes I know what you are talking about) the claim is hearsay, so in that case it's hard to see anything else other than political bias as being the actual reason for the claim.

    But a witness (or whistleblower) needs to be vetted just as you would vet any witness and certainly bias of the witness plays a role.
     
    RodB and ButterBalls like this.
  8. Golem

    Golem Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2016
    Messages:
    15,199
    Likes Received:
    4,914
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Not only can you. It's the way it should be done. The political position is absolutely irrelevant.

    It seems to me that Trump supporters are mentally prepared to live in a world of complete corruption. I can tell you one thing: no matter what you read on wingnut media, fox or... whatever you use for information, most public servants are not corrupt. Though this administration strives to put corruption at the top, this will not become a normal.

    This is not a court of law. As a matter of fact, the whistleblowers testimony would probably not even be necessary if this were a court of law with access to the actual documents in this case.

    A whistleblower just blows the whistle. Corroboration of what he/she is denouncing is easy to obtain once we have all the documents and testimony from those who are actually involved. The whistleblower just points the way to the facts and to where the evidence that corroborate those facts lies.
     
    Last edited: Oct 11, 2019
  9. RodB

    RodB Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 29, 2015
    Messages:
    10,104
    Likes Received:
    4,201
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    You cannot vet a witness's words without vetting the witness.
    That is 180 degrees backward. Vetting the witness nee whistleblower is magnitudes more critical before vetting the words. Why would anyone listen to words of a serial liar for instance; and you don't know if he is a liar or 100% truthful until he is vetted. If political position is probative to the case it is certainly relevant; if not probative it is irrelevant.

    This whistleblower would not be allowed on the stand because his testimony is hearsay. He wouldn't have been allowed to file a complaint for the same reason before congress altered the rules for making a whistleblower complaint, which occurred -- very suspiciously -- coincident with the complaint.

    You cannot corroborate hearsay and opinion.
     
  10. Lee Atwater

    Lee Atwater Banned Donor

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2017
    Messages:
    19,516
    Likes Received:
    9,244
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    The whistleblower is not the story. To date, virtually every substantive allegation has been confirmed by other sources. For that reason the identity of the whistleblower and the contacts he/she has made with politicians from both parties is irrelevant.
     
    yardmeat likes this.
  11. squidward

    squidward Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 23, 2009
    Messages:
    32,532
    Likes Received:
    6,390
    Trophy Points:
    113
    So you're ready to dismiss the claims of the dems??
     
  12. Just A Man

    Just A Man Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2009
    Messages:
    6,414
    Likes Received:
    2,827
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I'm confused about the "whistleblower" who has blown the whistle on a phone call Trump made. Seems the "whistleblower" who didn't hear the conversation was told something Trump said was bad. So Trump has released the transcript of the call for all to see and it appears he said nothing bad. So now the dems have rolled out another "whistleblower" regarding the same call. So I re-read the transcript and I'm still confused. Maybe the dems should go back to "Trump colluded with the Russians".
     
    squidward likes this.
  13. Golem

    Golem Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2016
    Messages:
    15,199
    Likes Received:
    4,914
    Trophy Points:
    113
    He's not a witness. He's a whistle blower. Just verify if what he is saying is true by looking at the transcripts, memos, actual witnesses..... This idea that we need to know the whistleblower's party affiliation This idea of yours that we must know what party he has voted for is beyond ridiculous. We don't even need to know his identity!

    And, as a matter of fact, the whistleblower's recount has, in fact, been verified. So why would you need to know his party affiliation other than to inundate Trump's gullible supporters with red herrings?

    Beyond ridiculous!

    I have no idea. Why do Trump supporters still listen to Trump?


    He wouldn't be allowed on the stand unless the jury knows his party affilitaion!? What nonsense! I doubt any competent judge would even allow such a question if he were on the stand. Besides, he's not on the stand. He's just blowing the whistle.

    They already did!
     
    Last edited: Oct 12, 2019
    Meta777 likes this.
  14. Golem

    Golem Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2016
    Messages:
    15,199
    Likes Received:
    4,914
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Yeah. Unless you consider asking a foreign leader to help out on the campaign by intervening in our electoral process and looking for dirt on your opponent is "wrong". Especially under a veiled (and probably not so veiled, according to ulterior developments) threat to either withhold funds which were appropriated by Congress, or conditioning the sale of weapons, to their complying with this "little favor they can't refuse"

    Well, yeah. That's obvious! And it's what Trump is counting on: the fact that his loyalists are still the "select few" who still believe what he says..

    The good news is that most Americans are not as confused as you guys are, though.
    http://politicalforum.com/index.php...n-the-call-to-ukraine-was-appropriate.562765/

    Going from "confused" to "right" is easy. Just stop believing everything that comes out of Trump's mouth. I mean there is very little more he can say to convince anybody that he's a pathological liar.
     
    Last edited: Oct 12, 2019
  15. Just A Man

    Just A Man Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2009
    Messages:
    6,414
    Likes Received:
    2,827
    Trophy Points:
    113
    We need to compare a transcript of Trump's Ukraine call to a transcript of our then vice president Biden's call. No one wanted to impeach Biden.
     
  16. Lee Atwater

    Lee Atwater Banned Donor

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2017
    Messages:
    19,516
    Likes Received:
    9,244
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Members of the WH staff who read the full transcript disagree.
     
  17. Lee Atwater

    Lee Atwater Banned Donor

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2017
    Messages:
    19,516
    Likes Received:
    9,244
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Unsubstantiated allegations about Biden are not the issue. The as yet not fully revealed transcript of the Zelensky call is.
     
  18. Just A Man

    Just A Man Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2009
    Messages:
    6,414
    Likes Received:
    2,827
    Trophy Points:
    113
    There are certainly no shortage of opinions.
     
  19. ARDY

    ARDY Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2015
    Messages:
    8,184
    Likes Received:
    1,624
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Which is why law enforcement would seek to gather more evidence and witnesses
    A spouses testimony in a not divorce case will not be dismissed
    OTOH would also need supporting evidence

    It is interesting how often the second hand information issue comes up
    I was engaging in a discussion with another forum member who insisted the second witness added nothing to the case despite first hand information and cooperation

    Anonymous tip lines are common for a reason
    And while that information is not sufficient, it is also not dismissed
    Practically speaking... I think there are likely reasons the whistle blower program was set up the way it was.... offering anonymity. If the plan is to solicit, then dismiss anonymous whistleblower tips... I do not see the point of the program

    there are lots of conservatives who disagree with your opinion
     
  20. ARDY

    ARDY Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2015
    Messages:
    8,184
    Likes Received:
    1,624
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Hence the significance of the 2nd WB

    don’t many investigations begin with some thread of information
    Which by itself could be dismissed
    And then there is an investigation to get more information
    Isn’t this standard process?
    Aren't investigators accustomed to dealing with the fact that some information may biased, or questionable for some other reason?
    That would be a more credible argument if only politicians were taking it seriously

    Btw, your point applies well in respect to trump claims about Biden

    yes... that is an ongoing part of the investigation
     
    Last edited: Oct 12, 2019
  21. RodB

    RodB Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 29, 2015
    Messages:
    10,104
    Likes Received:
    4,201
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    The transcript and the principals, the only solid first hand sources reject all of his allegations. The only sources that confirm the allegations are sources who know no more than the whistleblower -- not including opinions as actual allegations. Of course the Dems haven't trotted out all of their "sources" yet.
     
  22. RodB

    RodB Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 29, 2015
    Messages:
    10,104
    Likes Received:
    4,201
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    His party affiliation is not probative and I could care less. His support of a potential candidate against Trump however is probative, whatever that candidate's party is. His getting help and advice from the Chair of the House Intelligence Committee is extremely suspicious and probative -- whatever the Chair's party affiliation is. You are stuck on a straw man.
     
  23. RodB

    RodB Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 29, 2015
    Messages:
    10,104
    Likes Received:
    4,201
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    That might be interesting if Trump had actually asked him to help his campaign or asked him to find dirt on a political opponent. We could have ham and eggs.... if only we had some ham and if only we had some eggs.
     
  24. RodB

    RodB Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 29, 2015
    Messages:
    10,104
    Likes Received:
    4,201
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    A lot of people who have read the transcript disagree. So what????? A lot of people who have read the transcript (including the principals who generated the transcript!) agree. Maybe, since we are a democracy of sorts, we could take a vote!!!! Then we could take a vote on whether you or I are good or bad people.
     
  25. Just A Man

    Just A Man Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2009
    Messages:
    6,414
    Likes Received:
    2,827
    Trophy Points:
    113
    If Trump can be impeached based solely on that phone call then the next president would be smart to remove all the phones in the White House.
     

Share This Page