Velshi: Not Every Argument Has Two Sides | MSNBC

Velshi: Not Every Argument Has Two Sides | MSNBC 1

There are some issues that just don’t have two sides. What led to the second impeachment of the former President is one of those things. Exactly two weeks before we inaugurated a duly elected president, a violent mob ransacked Congress. A mob that was motivated by a President who had spent four years attacking facts and truth, ending with two months of election lies and hysteria. You will hear a lot about how this impeachment is dividing the country but, in the end, no matter your political persuasion – we all know what happened on January 6th. » Subscribe to MSNBC:

MSNBC delivers breaking news, in-depth analysis of politics headlines, as well as commentary and informed perspectives. Find video clips and segments from The Rachel Maddow Show, Morning Joe, Meet the Press Daily, The Beat with Ari Melber, Deadline: White House with Nicolle Wallace, Hardball, All In, Last Word, 11th Hour, and more.

Connect with MSNBC Online
Visit msnbc.com:
Subscribe to MSNBC Newsletter:
Find MSNBC on Facebook:
Follow MSNBC on Twitter:
Follow MSNBC on Instagram:

Velshi: Not Every Argument Has Two Sides | MSNBC

86 Comments on "Velshi: Not Every Argument Has Two Sides | MSNBC"

  1. An insurrection will not stop Republicans from trying to gaslight us that nothing happened.

  2. 2:38 … or watching Fox News.

  3. Jan Berrington | January 24, 2021 at 5:51 PM | Reply

    He was Impeached while still in office! It’s the trial that is happening afterwards!

    • Orange man gone. Lets move on. Can your indoctrinated mind get over orange man now?

    • Poppy Kneegrow | January 24, 2021 at 10:36 PM | Reply

      @Gabe Dudley how old are you? You’re behaving like a tweenager

    • @Gabe Dudley are you using “indoctrination” ironically?!! Kettle asking Pot…..lol

    • @FRAG OUT im using it because thats whats happening. To be indoctrinated by a political ideology is no different than being indoctrinated by a religion, cult group, or the nazis.

    • @Gabe Dudley so then you’d agree that those who follow “Qanon” or Trump-ism or in militant groups are within that definition as well? This includes “Antifa” and BLM, to save you from misunderstandings of my question…

  4. Exactly Mr.Velshi. Contrary to what Kellyanne Conway and Trump tried to make America believe, there is no such thing as “alternative facts”. There are only facts and lies.
    2+2=4. That is a fact. There is no alternative to that. Any alternative to 2+2=4, is called a LIE.

  5. “The secret of freedom is educating the people, whereas the secret of tyranny is keeping them ignorant.” ~Robespierre
    “Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities” ~ Voltaire
    “There can be no successful appeal from the ballot to the bullet.” ~Abraham Lincoln
    “If we are to have another contest in the near future of our national existence, I predict that the dividing line will not be Mason and Dixon’s but between patriotism and intelligence on the one side, and superstition, ambition and ignorance on the other.” ~ Ulysses S. Grant, 1875
    “The problem with the world is that the intelligent people are full of doubts, while the stupid ones are full of confidence.” ~ Charles Bukowski
    ~ “Everybody has a right to their opinion, but nobody has a right to be wrong in their facts.”
    ~ Bernard Baruch, quoted in 1946 AP article.

    • @Lee ~ An ad hominem is an attack, Doc. You were attacking the person who spoke the words, not the merit of the words quoted. It’s a logical fallacy, a dishonest argument.

      When pointed out to you, you have merely doubled down on your ad hominem and targets of it, spewing contradictory nonsense. Your reply lacks any rational rebuttal to any of the points and arguments presented, instead vomiting out an emotional outburst of vitriol typical of an insecure intellectual weakling. Ironic that you should call others who were only seeking to educate and provoke thought a “jerk.”

      The Thermidorian Reaction of July 27, 1794 in opposition to Robespierre and the Jacobins used the same guillotine employed by the Committee of Public Safety to execute 104 Jacobins, including Robespierre on July 28, over the next three days, inaugurating the “White Terror”
      reign against Jacobins throughout France. In other words, those who executed Robespierre and his supporters in opposition to the “Reign of Terror” conducted against the nobles, elites, and wealthy insurrecting against the French Revolution conducted their own “Reign of Terror” against the French Revolutionists.

      The coup was primarily a reassertion of the rights of the National Convention against the Committee of Public Safety and of the nation against the Paris Commune. It was followed by the disarming of the committee, the emptying of the prisons, and the purging of Jacobin clubs. Social and political life became freer, more extravagant, and more personally corrupt. There was a splurge of fashion and a conspicuous consumption of bourgeois wealth, while the poor suffered from harsh economic conditions.

      In summation, Robispierre felt strongly about preserving the noble aims of the French Revolution which his ideals were instrumental to starting, but also spoke out against the ensuing excesses by the Committee of Public Safety of which with he may have to some degree been associated.

      That era of French history is much more complicated than the manner in which you sought to ignorantly oversimplify it, viewing it through the lens of the 21st century, rather than seeking greater understanding through a thorough reading of the history and by viewing it more objectively through the prism in which those events occurred.

      Hopefully, future generations will be wise enough not to judge us and this era in American history so quickly or harshly and with so little understanding as you have done here with French history. Food for thought, with which you are free as you will to nourish yourself or starve yourself.

    • @Gregory Karl ~ Would agree that both both share nearly identical sentiments. It is also possible–perhaps even likely–that Yeats could have been the inspiration for, or origin of, the Bukowski quote. It’s also possible that great minds think alike, and they both came to the same idea independently, as frequently happens.

      Have to disagree, however, that Bukowski’s quote here is a bad paraphrasing of Yeats words. Would argue that Bukowski makes the point more plainly and effectively, despite–or maybe because of–lacking the flourish of Yeats poeticism. But, after all, Bukowski was always more the poet of the common man. Do not agree with Yeats that highly intelligent people or “the best lack all conviction.” Instead, more accurately, they are amenable to changing their convictions when or where facts, reason, and evidence may necessitate it.

      Edit: Forgot to thank-you for the quote contribution. We may slightly disagree, but the opportunity to learn and think is always appreciated, nonetheless.

    • thank you for posting this. these are all brilliant quotes that couldn’t be more applicable. wow.

    • @Gregory Karl ~ A person without any convictions is like a sailboat without a rudder: lost, wandering adrift and buffeted about upon an endless, turbulent sea. ~wily wascal

    • That Bubowski quote is primo

  6. Well done! Keep showing what happened! In the old days you would let a tiny tweet get the headline! He played you every time!

  7. Ccrrinton Wright | January 24, 2021 at 6:17 PM | Reply

    Hey I like pineapple on pizza but your friend pink Trumper’s did cause a riot

  8. All opinions are not equal. Some are a very great deal more robust, sophisticated and well supported in logic and argument than others.
    — Douglas Adams

    • piccola quantita | January 24, 2021 at 10:51 PM | Reply

      Some arguments ARE more robust, sophisticated and well supported by logic and argument. But some opinions are merely propaganda.

    • piccola quantita | January 24, 2021 at 10:54 PM | Reply

      It may sound counterintuitive…
      *begins brainwashing*
      There are things we can all agree on…
      *appeals to reason*
      This doesn’t have two sides…
      *softening you up*
      You might be against the second impeachment…
      *almost complete*
      But on the merits of it…
      *appeals to logic*
      There is simply no debate.

      And there you have it, you have now been successfully convinced that there is no debate, the matter is now settled.

      There’s no need to think for yourself.

    • @Mike Ditka Donald Trump’s father was arrested WITH the KKK, because he WAS the KKK. Donald Trump said his father was his hero. Donald Trump was also, successfully, sued in court several times for having racists business policies. BOOM💥💥💥💥💥

    • piccola quantita | January 24, 2021 at 11:13 PM | Reply

      @SteelPrincess Funny how the mainstream media never mentioned that in the four years they were smearing Trump as a nazi.
      You would think that would be there go-to… maybe it’s because they can’t substantiate that claim.

      boom

    • ​@Mike Ditka,

      In terms Mike Ditka will be able to understand…
      Your words are like criticizing a member of the Decatur Staleys for not wearing a helmet, because no one in their right mind today would walk out on the field without a helmet on.

  9. The “both sides” arguement is a conserative talking point used to deflect blame because they don’t want to acknowledge they were wrong and choose to not take responsibility.

    We can’t let them get away with it anymore.

    • Mister Tambourine | January 24, 2021 at 10:50 PM | Reply

      I’m independent and that doesn’t sound right. There absolutely is two sides to any argument. Conservatives are typically against abortion because they say it ends a life and liberals come from the perspective of a women has the right to choose what to do with her body. Now look at covid. The left typically believes we must lockdown and social distance even at the expense of the economy and whatever else because if not it’s going to end lives. Here comes the republicans saying they should have the right to manage that the way they want. There’s always two sides to every argument. Especially this one about Trump.

  10. Kristoffa Ninkama | January 24, 2021 at 6:19 PM | Reply

    EXACTLY, PRECISELY, CORRECTLY, UNDOUBTEDLY GENUINELY, POINTEDLY STATED.

    • @Sam Harris Herd immunity, which is junk science, was popular in some parts of Europe, and there were unfortunately political leaders who followed that belief. Just counting countries that have a population of over 40,000, there are only seven in the world that did worse per capita than the US. They should not be exempt from criticism. Infectious disease experts begged Trump to take action, but he refused. His inaction was consistent with his lies about the severity of the pandemic. Lies that he admitted to in conversations with Bob Woodward, which were recorded and released on YouTube. He said nothing about herd immunity. Trump said that he believed in the severity of the crisis, but didn’t want to cause a panic. A likely explanation is that he didn’t want to frighten investors, and loose the 2020 election. The economy was wrecked, but investor confidence remained strong, probably due to Biden’s standing in the polls and the prospect of vaccines. If Trump were to have done the morally correct thing, 97% or more of those deaths could have been prevented. The tragedy of Belgium and the UK is no excuse.

    • It is what it is . America full of Idiots .

    • @R L T Obama is blameless, because he listened to the advice of scientists. Trump did not.

    • @Sam Harris I don’t imagine for one minute that Trump did any research or is intelligent enough to extrapolate data. As for Bush, I would totally agree that he was all to eager to listen to intelligence reports that suggested a danger from Saddam Hussein. The same thing happened in the UK with our PM. It is now known that there was deliberate disinformation coming from Iraqis who wanted Saddam toppled, and that some of our security personnel exaggerated the threat. I think Obama has more integrity, but I can’t be certain. In the ’50s and ’60s there was genuine fear of a communist invasion, but we know that the CIA have been involved in seedy foreign policy actions at times. With respect to your parties, I don’t think either has the moral high ground, but Trump was vary bad for your country. Your reply is a lot more balanced and considered than many who just see things as black or white. I hope things improve for you.

    • @R L T I have said that I have no sympathy for rioters or looters. You call my argument of the media having sympathy for the BLM cause ridiculous. I would hope that everyone supports racial equality. Also, there were heavy handed tactics employed by a massive police presence, who were at the disposal of Trump directly, as opposed to a suspicious lack thereof before the assault on the Capitol when the potential danger had been communicated. You won’t get any argument from me about how wrong the rioting and looting were.

  11. Oh, ouch! I love pineapple on my pizza! Ha! Now Trump, that’s another story.

  12. No unity with fascists.

    • @BostonBruins 88 Unlikely the website, more likely a person.
      Though the prior ones contained links for you to read and learn from. But banning links understandable.
      You can just use google to read about the characteristics of fascism, though I suspect you know them and don’t care.

    • BostonBruins 88 | January 24, 2021 at 10:58 PM | Reply

      @reyalsregnava You’re accusing me of endorsing fascism when they’re legitimately being communists and removing your comments… ironic

    • Agreed!! Down with the Democratic Party!

    • @BostonBruins 88 That’s not what communism is….

    • @BostonBruins 88 Anyway. I’m pointing out that you either never bothered to check why something would receive a label. This would make you not only lazy but willfully ignorarant.
      Instead I determined you did indeed look at why the label of fascism got brought out.

      Am I wrong about you looking up the meaning of words, or am I wrong about you being lazy and ignorant?

  13. Why is it fair for the guy that robbed the bank to have his partners in crime to be chosen for the jury pool.

  14. It’s time for the Republican Party to “clean house” and return to being the party of Abraham Lincoln.

    • They should all be hooked up with portable lie detectors that sound an alarm when they lie

    • I think it’s about time to let the man rest in peace.

    • Sharon Azevedo | January 24, 2021 at 9:38 PM | Reply

      Thats such a joke

    • stefan davenport | January 24, 2021 at 11:08 PM | Reply

      @Nena Johnson After the political parties switched platforms before 1918, Pres Wilson signed the Women’s Suffrage Act of 1920, enacted the Federal Reserve, and since then, ONLY Democratic Congresses AND Presidents have enacted ALL social safety net legislation and ALL Civil Rights Laws.

      The Republican party ran a candidate in 1940, named Wendell Wilkie whose only platform was:
      ” Repeal Social Security and Unemployment Ins, rural electrification and the Food and Drug administration”
      — where would America be right now if the voters had listened to the backward Republican party ?

  15. Spot on, Mr. Velshi.

  16. This is like a spouse being caught in a ten year marital affair and quickly saying, why can’t we be friends? Ouch.

    • I actually think it’s worse than that it’s like your spouse trying to muder you and then when caught saying why can’t we forgive and forget

    • @Carol Harris To quote Betty Bowers: “No, don’t call the police! We need to focus on unity and healing after this ordeal that we’ve _both_ just been through.” 🥺

      (said by a mugger right after mugging you)

  17. The insurrection started in November when T rump began gathering his mob under the umbrella of his lie about a stolen election.

  18. Mr Velshi apparently hasn’t met some of my relatives, who are STILL (figuratively speaking) eating a pineapple pizza in a tornado, while wearing a MAGA hat!

  19. This piece made my day. For so long people have been using “what aboutism” or being “fair and balanced” as an argument to promote their specious posts of view. Time to hammer on this hard.

  20. I’m a very fair and equal opportunity debater: everyone is entitled to agree with my opinions no matter who they are

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published.


*


This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.