The implication here is that the threat of charging politicians with crimes that they’ve actually committed is no threat at all, regardless of party, and, in fact, sounds rather like an incentive going forward.
No, look at the bird faces and tie colors in each panel. The message is Democrats have some imminent criminal charges to fear here. Which is a very common right wing talking point.
Fully aware of that, doesn’t mean they’re incapable of repeating propaganda for the other side. It happens all the time. You know the phrase tax relief right? Of course you do. You’ve heard it used by people from across the gamut. Every time they do they reinforce what is a distinctively conservative political tenet: that taxes are inherently afflictions to be relieved. Not a debt to society for services rendered.
That’s a Republican viewpoint. And it’s deliberate. They drilled that phrase like they drilled the words freedom and terrorist down our throats. Coordinated fashion across literally hundreds of talking heads since the 80s. It’s so strong that virtually everyone has the same knee jerk reaction to just the thought of taxes. Young Democrats vote against spending bills, vote against higher taxes, all the time. They’re afflictions. We believe that now as a society, it only took 30 years or less. That’s the effect of propaganda.
It’s called framing, and when done correctly you can’t even broach topics without reinforcing the opposition unless you’re extremely careful.
This panel is a clear example of the power of framing. It’s the result of the last three generations being told all politicians are equally scum bags, that the very job itself is dishonest. That’s propaganda. It sets up the excuse “the other side does it too” when the damn well don’t.
It’s reinforcing the notion that the Democrats must be commiting crimes at an equal pace. That’s not just false, it’s absolutely absurd. There is no comparison to make between the two parties in the regard that this comic makes, and yet it makes it. That begs the question, doesn’t it?
Sooo again, all ears on what crimes Democrats might be sweating over (as directly implied by the comic).
They probably don’t have the same rate of crimes but
Bill Clinton: War criminal responsible for bombings in Afghanistan, Sudan and especially Kosovo. Also a rapist.
Obama: Drone strikes in Pakistan, Somalia and Yemen.
I don’t understand what this means. Are warcrimes not crimes to you? Or do you not believe that they happened?
In 2021, shortly after taking office, Biden bombed Syria and stole $9B from Afghanistan. Do you remember that? Were those not crimes to you?
Before you stammer out more rhetorical bullshit that serves as a strawman, let’s back up. My opinion on what crime means in the context here (and yours) don’t matter. It’s got a clear definition. In this case, we’re talking about US federal laws and elected party members who break them.
The war crimes you’re talking about apply to virtually every major leader in the world if you look to see who’s on the other side of their money. That’s largely just a function of political opinion.
Fact is the US isn’t a party to the pertinent bits of the Geneva Convention, which is your best example of an authority capable of prosecuting “war crimes”.
The hard historical reality is that “war crimes” are what the winning side says of the differing tactics of the losing side.
I’m not going to get sucked into a debate on the ethics and morals of geopolitics and the existence of warfare among the human species. That’s a fools errand to try to achieve anonymously online.
The implication here is that there’s a Democrat former POTUS who should be prosecuted for federal crimes?
I’m all ears.
The implication here is that the threat of charging politicians with crimes that they’ve actually committed is no threat at all, regardless of party, and, in fact, sounds rather like an incentive going forward.
No, look at the bird faces and tie colors in each panel. The message is Democrats have some imminent criminal charges to fear here. Which is a very common right wing talking point.
I assure you, whatever else the artist of PinkWug can be accused of, being right-wing is not one of them.
Fully aware of that, doesn’t mean they’re incapable of repeating propaganda for the other side. It happens all the time. You know the phrase tax relief right? Of course you do. You’ve heard it used by people from across the gamut. Every time they do they reinforce what is a distinctively conservative political tenet: that taxes are inherently afflictions to be relieved. Not a debt to society for services rendered.
That’s a Republican viewpoint. And it’s deliberate. They drilled that phrase like they drilled the words freedom and terrorist down our throats. Coordinated fashion across literally hundreds of talking heads since the 80s. It’s so strong that virtually everyone has the same knee jerk reaction to just the thought of taxes. Young Democrats vote against spending bills, vote against higher taxes, all the time. They’re afflictions. We believe that now as a society, it only took 30 years or less. That’s the effect of propaganda.
It’s called framing, and when done correctly you can’t even broach topics without reinforcing the opposition unless you’re extremely careful.
This panel is a clear example of the power of framing. It’s the result of the last three generations being told all politicians are equally scum bags, that the very job itself is dishonest. That’s propaganda. It sets up the excuse “the other side does it too” when the damn well don’t.
It’s reinforcing the notion that the Democrats must be commiting crimes at an equal pace. That’s not just false, it’s absolutely absurd. There is no comparison to make between the two parties in the regard that this comic makes, and yet it makes it. That begs the question, doesn’t it?
Sooo again, all ears on what crimes Democrats might be sweating over (as directly implied by the comic).
They probably don’t have the same rate of crimes but Bill Clinton: War criminal responsible for bombings in Afghanistan, Sudan and especially Kosovo. Also a rapist. Obama: Drone strikes in Pakistan, Somalia and Yemen.
Stretch farther, Armstrong.
I don’t understand what this means. Are warcrimes not crimes to you? Or do you not believe that they happened? In 2021, shortly after taking office, Biden bombed Syria and stole $9B from Afghanistan. Do you remember that? Were those not crimes to you?
It means you’re stretching far.
Before you stammer out more rhetorical bullshit that serves as a strawman, let’s back up. My opinion on what crime means in the context here (and yours) don’t matter. It’s got a clear definition. In this case, we’re talking about US federal laws and elected party members who break them.
The war crimes you’re talking about apply to virtually every major leader in the world if you look to see who’s on the other side of their money. That’s largely just a function of political opinion.
Fact is the US isn’t a party to the pertinent bits of the Geneva Convention, which is your best example of an authority capable of prosecuting “war crimes”.
The hard historical reality is that “war crimes” are what the winning side says of the differing tactics of the losing side.
I’m not going to get sucked into a debate on the ethics and morals of geopolitics and the existence of warfare among the human species. That’s a fools errand to try to achieve anonymously online.