If Hillary Clinton would have won, would this even be a story? It seems that outrage is directly proportional to how much the “correct” side benefits as opposed to the principles being espoused.
Also regarding NAACP, I remember a discussion on the efficiency of orgs whose mandate is to fix a particular issue, and whose existence is linked to the continued existence of the issue, leading to continually redefining the issue/moving the goalposts/changing the scope to stay relevant.
The "correct" side is defined by the principles espoused. It's impossible to honestly not conflate the two. This is not about political fairness as though every political party is entitled to rule equally independent of what their platform is.
Deceit is the Republican Party's brand. Of course there will be an outcry if they win under that banner. Nobody would care if they lost under it.
Any statement other than "all parties are identical" is partisan. It's not a problem to say that they stand for different things. That's the whole point of them.
Deceit is the Republican Brand for the same reason the color red and elephants are the Republican Brand: they regularly use it to identify themselves.
I’m not even republican but that seems like an insane statement, for reasonable interpretations of “deceit” and “represents”. Like, is this on their website or are you labeling it? To be charitable let’s say you’re reading between the lines.
Is this like people claiming the democrats stand for “welfare queens and social decay”?
Let's not nitpick vocabulary and miss the point. If Clinton won the election using Facebook's data, Republicans (who see democrats as deceitful) would be outraged at that deception leading to an election win. So the idea that this is a Democrat-driven manufactured partisan outrage is misleading -- it is outrage based on the perceived unfairness of using deceit to win elections.
You don't need to read between the lines to see Republicans as deceitful. Trump (and pretty much his whole campaign team apparently) have been lying nearly constantly for the last two years. That's why it's their brand: the deceitful in a very public way. You don't have to read between the lines. It's written right on the lines. If you're instead looking for the truth to be dictated by their website or something, I don't know what to tell you.
It’s such an insane position too because underneath is a paternalistic assumption that people don’t know what’s best for them. This is not the way to win hearts and minds! It seems to me almost as insane as the birther movement when Obama was president: primarily motivated by political angst, and not really effective at convincing the other voters.
https://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/facebook-data-...
If Hillary Clinton would have won, would this even be a story? It seems that outrage is directly proportional to how much the “correct” side benefits as opposed to the principles being espoused.
Also regarding NAACP, I remember a discussion on the efficiency of orgs whose mandate is to fix a particular issue, and whose existence is linked to the continued existence of the issue, leading to continually redefining the issue/moving the goalposts/changing the scope to stay relevant.