Summary
Newt Gingrich blasted a Julia Roberts-led ad encouraging women to vote privately, calling it a sign of the sick values he attributes to Democrats. In a heated exchange with Sean Hannity, he accused the party of promoting dishonesty and moral decay in America, suggesting this reflects a broader erosion of societal integrity. Gingrich, who faced his own scandals, cited Robert F. Kennedy Jr.'s recent split from the Democrats as further proof of disillusionment with what he sees as their corrupt influence.
How are you this dense? It doesn’t matter if the acts are equivalent. One adulterer accusing another adulterer of adultery is hypocrisy.
False equivalence is a common result when an anecdotal similarity is pointed out as equal, but the claim of equivalence does not bear scrutiny because the similarity is based on oversimplification or ignorance of additional factors.
False equivalence arguments are often used in journalism[9][10] and in politics, where flaws of one politician may be compared to flaws of a wholly different nature of another.
Abuse of power (SEXUAL HARASSMENT AND ASSAULT) and cheating is what Clinton did. That’s different than simple cheating. Like my very first comment thoroughly explains this. If you are a man still arguing against me for this false equivalence, I’m going to assume you don’t care about rape and sexual assault. There’s a WORLD OF DIFFERENCE to the VICTIM if the act was CONSENSUAL or not. Hope this helps!
It’s definitely not dense at all to try to gaslight a woman into believing that sexual assault is the same as a consensual relationship just because they both involved cheating…
Putting words in my mouth, making wild accusations, on top of being incredibly disrespectful elsewhere in this thread, nice.
You can’t deny that both Newt Gingrich and Bill Clinton are adulterers. Newt Gingrich accusing Bill Clinton of adultery is hypocrisy on Newt Gingrich’s part, because Newt Gingrich is an adulterer. That was the original point of the original comment. Saying a person does a bad thing is not the same as absolving them of all of their other transgressions, like you’re trying to so pedantically suggest. If you’d like to continue this discussion I’d be happy to, but if you want to continue to accuse and divert, I will not be replying.
