Jon Huntsman compares GOP to Communist China

[Ziggurat]

Pushing that tu quoque for all it's worth, eh?

A double standard is a double standard. Not that I really care about either. This is politics, and political parties push their own agendas. That's the nature of the game, and the fact that it isn't idealized preschool cooperative play doesn't make it Stalinist. Do you feel otherwise? Do you think that disinviting Huntsman from one event is really similar in any important way to the sort of things Joseph Stalin did during his party purges? Was that comparison justified, or was it just full of ****?

 

[Cleon]

A double standard is a double standard.

A tu-quoque fallacy is a to-quoque fallacy.

Do you feel otherwise? Do you think that disinviting Huntsman from one event is really similar in any important way to the sort of things Joseph Stalin did during his party purges? Was that comparison justified, or was it just full of ****?

Well, the important thing is that you find some way to deflect from the topic of the thread and focus on something else, like a comparison with Stalin or the Democrats' actions almost a decade ago.

Perhaps instead of looking for "double standards" (aka "tu-quoque fallacies"), perhaps you should ask yourself if a political organization that tries to silence everyone who doesn't hop on the born-again Christian anti-science bandwagon is one that you really want to support.

 

[mhaze]

A double standard is a double standard. Not that I really care about either. This is politics, and political parties push their own agendas. That's the nature of the game, and the fact that it isn't idealized preschool cooperative play doesn't make it Stalinist. Do you feel otherwise? Do you think that disinviting Huntsman from one event is really similar in any important way to the sort of things Joseph Stalin did during his party purges? Was that comparison justified, or was it just full of ****?

I have studied what Stalin actually did. It's one area of history that interested me. Also Mao, to a fair extent.

But I took the comment as sort of a general smear/swipe, not literal. Literal would mean we have idiots here in the forum. That's not the case. But leave it to socialist liberals to insult a conservative by giving him a label of one of their own more progressive historical figures.

But that probably did not occur to Mattus.

 

[Humes fork]

His choice for VP will go a long way here. The choice of Palin hammered any chance McCain had of gaining the independent vote. We'll see if Romney is smart enough to realize that.

Romney does to a large extent face the same problem as McCain did, that he is viewed as being too close to the center. McCain tried to remedy it with Palin, which didn't work out so well.

I don't think Romney will do the same mistake. The southern elector votes won't go to Obama even if Romney runs, so if he is smart he will choose someone to appeal to centrists and swing-states.

 

[mhaze]

....perhaps you should ask yourself if a political organization that tries to silence everyone who doesn't hop on the born-again Christian anti-science bandwagon is one that you really want to support.

Revealing.

But not in the way you intended.

 

[Brainster]

Huntsman was conservative enough to be elected governor of Utah, and Romney was liberal enough to be elected governor of Massachusetts, but Huntsman is the moderate here (moderate of course being defined as "criticizes Republicans").

Of course, had Huntsman won the nomination we'd be hearing what an extremist he is....

 

[RandFan]

Is it possible to judge Jon Huntsman in the light of Jon Huntsman? Or is any statement about Huntsman suspect in light of another person, why?

 

[RandFan]

Huntsman was conservative enough to be elected governor of Utah, and Romney was liberal enough to be elected governor of Massachusetts, but Huntsman is the moderate here (moderate of course being defined as "criticizes Republicans").

Of course, had Huntsman won the nomination we'd be hearing what an extremist he is....

Not by me. I've stated quite frankly I believe Romney and Huntsmen are both moderates. I've stated that Romney's claims of being conservative are lies. I've stated that I admire Huntsman's willingness to embrace and defer to science. Of the entire field of current and past candidates for this cycle I stated openly that those were the only two I'd be willing to vote for. I still would vote Romney but I wouldn't like it. And I'll still attack him for his craven prevarication.

 

[Olowkow]

loser is whiney boy now?

Not from what I read. He is one of the few republicans I can think of that actually is using his own integrity and reasoning. It is a shame that he feels he has to endorse Romney, but he may well be correct that Romney will have an easier time getting **** passed by the congress.

 

[A'isha]

Of course, had Huntsman won the nomination we'd be hearing what an extremist he is....

http://www.logicallyfallacious.com/index.php/logical-fallacies/107-hypothesis-contrary-to-fact

Hypothesis Contrary to Fact

(also known as: counterfactual fallacy, speculative fallacy, "what if" fallacy, wouldchuck)

Description: Offering a poorly supported claim about what might have happened in the past or future, if (the hypothetical part) circumstances or conditions were different. The fallacy also entails treating future hypothetical situations as if they are fact.

Logical Form:

If event X did happen, then event Y would have happened. (based only on speculation)

 

[Ziggurat]

Well, the important thing is that you find some way to deflect from the topic of the thread and focus on something else, like a comparison with Stalin or the Democrats' actions almost a decade ago.

If you think the comparisons to Stalin are off topic, complain to the person who made them.

Perhaps instead of looking for "double standards" (aka "tu-quoque fallacies"), perhaps you should ask yourself if a political organization that tries to silence everyone who doesn't hop on the born-again Christian anti-science bandwagon is one that you really want to support.

You've got a funny notion of what it takes to silence a person. But what obligation, precisely, do you think a political organization has to support someone who works against the interest of that organization? Why is a political organization not free to invite or not invite whomever it wants to invite to its own events, using whatever basis it chooses? And lastly, what support do you imagine I'm providing here? Because the only thing I can see that I'm supporting is freedom of association. I find it strange that you view that as a partisan issue.

 

[Cleon]

You've got a funny notion of what it takes to silence a person. But what obligation, precisely, do you think a political organization has to support someone who works against the interest of that organization? Why is a political organization not free to invite or not invite whomever it wants to invite to its own events, using whatever basis it chooses? And lastly, what support do you imagine I'm providing here? Because the only thing I can see that I'm supporting is freedom of association. I find it strange that you view that as a partisan issue.

You know what's really, really, really funny?

I don't disagree with you one little bit. The Republican Party absolutely has the right to disassociate themselves from Huntsman. It's kinda petty, IMO, but they have the right.

Had you simply made that point, I probably would've simply said "well said, I agree," and perhaps made some joke about listening for seven angels playing seven trumpets. Instead, you immediately launched into a dictionary-definition tu quoque fallacy, followed by this red herring about Stalin.

 

[RandFan]

YThe Republican Party absolutely has the right to disassociate themselves from Huntsman. It's kinda petty...

From "big tent" to "shut up and toe the line". A few years ago, as a registered Republican this really stuck in my craw. Ideological purity. Criticism not allowed.

Yes, they do have the right, but what good is a party that refuses to embrace diverse ideas and criticism? Petty is the least of it. Let me hasten to add, when the Democrats do it they are wrong also. I just think they do it less. But then on the other hand, I'm not a Democrat.

 

[Ziggurat]

Instead, you immediately launched into a dictionary-definition tu quoque fallacy, followed by this red herring about Stalin.

As I said before, if you've got a problem with the whole Stalin comparison, bring it up with ANTPogo.

 

[ponderingturtle]

Not by me. I've stated quite frankly I believe Romney and Huntsmen are both moderates. I've stated that Romney's claims of being conservative are lies. I've stated that I admire Huntsman's willingness to embrace and defer to science. Of the entire field of current and past candidates for this cycle I stated openly that those were the only two I'd be willing to vote for. I still would vote Romney but I wouldn't like it. And I'll still attack him for his craven prevarication.

I don't see it. I think Romney holds what ever belief is most convenient at the time. I don't see him abandoning the republicans and going crazy liberal like he was Reagan or something.

 

[Brainster]

You know what's really, really, really funny?

I don't disagree with you one little bit. The Republican Party absolutely has the right to disassociate themselves from Huntsman. It's kinda petty, IMO, but they have the right.

Huntsman disassociated himself from the GOP months ago, when he started bruiting about a third-party run. The obvious drawback about that from the Republican perspective is that it virtually guarantees an Obama victory.

Huntsman should have known he had no chance this cycle. The GOP simply does not nominate somebody new to the national stage, which Huntsman was. The first time around is simply a get-acquainted and get in line run. In four years or (I hope) eight, he would have had a chance to garner the nomination. Now, of course, he's washed up.

 

[RandFan]

Huntsman disassociated himself from the GOP months ago, when he started bruiting about a third-party run. The obvious drawback about that from the Republican perspective is that it virtually guarantees an Obama victory.

Huntsman should have known he had no chance this cycle. The GOP simply does not nominate somebody new to the national stage, which Huntsman was. The first time around is simply a get-acquainted and get in line run. In four years or (I hope) eight, he would have had a chance to garner the nomination. Now, of course, he's washed up.

I think the criticism that Huntsman knew the league he was playing in and therefore cannot complain for the consequences is fair.

 

[MattusMaximus]

*cough* Lieberman! *cough*

Touche, Zig. But, I'll have you know, I was among the Democrats here telling the other Democrats who wanted to oust (and probably still do want to oust) Lieberman to leave him alone. I, for one, actually value a bit of dissent within my political party.

Try again.

 

[MattusMaximus]

Huntsman disassociated himself from the GOP months ago, when he started bruiting about a third-party run. The obvious drawback about that from the Republican perspective is that it virtually guarantees an Obama victory.

Huntsman should have known he had no chance this cycle. The GOP simply does not nominate somebody new to the national stage, which Huntsman was. The first time around is simply a get-acquainted and get in line run. In four years or (I hope) eight, he would have had a chance to garner the nomination. Now, of course, he's washed up.

ORLY?



ETA: I know, I know. Technically she wasn't nominated for the presidency. But given McCain's age and health issues, it was a fair question to ask what qualified her to be the potential president. Not to mention, I think she's hot and like looking at her photo. Mama grizzly... *rowr!*

 

[MattusMaximus]

Frum is one Republican I think often makes a lot of sense. I enjoy reading his column.

Ditto. Sadly, he too is considered by too many in the GOP/Tea Party ranks to be a 'heretic'.

*Sigh* I miss the Goldwater Republicans